The first official footage is finally out there for “G.I. Joe: The Rise Of Cobra” and now it’s up to you. Is this first sneak peek making you scream “Yo Joe, that’s awesome!” or “No Joe! What the hell?!?”
So what do you think? The characters are all there. Sienna Miller is a sultry baroness. That’s for sure. But what about Channing Tatum as Duke? Dennis Quaid as Hawk? Christopher Eccleston as Destro? Clearly the action is big (the poor Eiffel Tower…) and yes, Snake Eyes does a cool flip or two but what’s your sense of the story? Can this possibly deliver the live-action Joe adventure we’ve all craved for so long?
Defiance opened wide this weekend, and director Edward Zwick has to be shaking his head in disappointment. With the film officially released in 2008, Zwick - and the studio, Paramount Vantage - were clearly eyeing the flick - about the true story of a couple Belarussian brothers who decide to fight back against the Nazi's attempts to exterminate Jews - to be an awards contender. Critical reviews have been kind but not glowing, and Defiance was out of the race before it began. It's a shame, really, because Defiance is a pretty good flick.
The flick stars Daniel Craig, Liev Schreiber and Jamie Bell as three brothers, who, after their parents are murdered, take to the woods to avoid being killed themselves. Over time, they come across more and more Jewish refugees who have fled the Nazis, and decide to protect them. But whereas Tuvia (Craig) is more interested in keeping people alive, Zus (Schreiber) wants to take a more active approach and join up with Russian forces. Between brotherly quarrels and the prospects of a harsh weather, the Bielskis struggle to keep people alive and out of Nazi hands.
Zwick, who directed Blood Diamond, The Last Samurai and Glory, is well-suited for the job, as he is best when doing action-dramas such as Defiance. The flick is entertaining, exciting and relatively powerful, and Zwick brings a glossy grittiness to the story. Those looking for a good, modern-day Nazi picture should look no further than Defiance.
At the same time, Zwick's directorial style is what keeps his flicks from attaining glory. As with his other films, he is very good at implementing action-dramas, but never quite reaches the synergistic levels where the action and drama complement one another. Zwick develops great and believable action sequences and is able to provide suitable drama to go along with those scenes, but his flicks - including Defiance - don't shift seamlessly between the two genres. Zwick repeatedly appears more comfortable when doing action than drama; at times, Defiance feels overly long when something exciting isn't happening, if only just a little.
Nevertheless, Defiance is an engaging, relatively strong film with some quality war sequences, good acting and a unique story. Hollywood seems to have shifted its attention from all out warfare to the lesser known stories that took place away from the front lines, as seen here and in Valkyrie. The story is excellent and one of the most inspiring in recent memory.
Craig, who looks especially rugged when caked in dirt as he is throughout much of the picture, delivers his best performance since Road to Perdition, though I think he'll find his greatest chops when he doing something away from the action genre. Schreiber, who has been around for years but who in my mind is still that guy from the Scream flicks, continues to show that he has leading potential given the chance. Bell is fine, though he didn't blow me away.
This has been a disjointed review, in part due to my inability to explain how Defiance is a very good film and Zwick is a very good director, yet there's something in Zwick's approach that keep his flicks from working perfectly. Defiance is well-made and intriguing, and other than needing a few minutes cut from its running time is one of the better flicks of 2008. Still, there's something about it that doesn't elevate it to that upper echelon of war films.
My Bloody Valentine makes its highly anticipated return to the big screen, and by "highly anticipated" I mean "completely unnecessary." The gory horror flick, about a crazed miner who wanders around slaughtering people and carving out their hearts, does have one thing going for it, though: it's in 3D.
Jensen Ackles stars as Tom Hanniger, a man who has returned to his home town ten years after a crazed miner murdered dozens of people, including several of his friends. Upon his arrival, he discovers that his high school girlfriend (Jaime King) is now married to his former best friend, the town sheriff (Kerr Smith). When another former friend (Betsy Rue) is found brutally murdered, however, the townspeople begin to suspect that the original killer, Harry Warden, has returned to finish what he started. The sheriff, however, immediately suspects that Tom is responsible - but his wife isn't so sure.
My Bloody Valentine 3D is your pretty typical slasher film: bad acting, nudity and lots of gore. Director Patrick Lussier (Dracula 2000, White Noise 2) doesn't show particular care to the look of the flick, as the film lacks the grit that more successful slasher films of the 21st century have mastered. One person dies after the next, but Lussier shows little interest in originality or setup, as the picture flightily rolls from one slaughter to the next without savoring the prelude to the kill. The flick is shockingly unscary, in part thanks to the picture's poor editing. This is rather surprising given that Lussier, who also edited the film, has made a career of editing horror flicks, including the first two Screams.
The issue is the same with all modern 3D flicks: the director becomes distracted by the gimmick. With little interest in actually making a decent flick that effectively entertains the audience on its own interest, Lussier relies too heavily on 3D to please the audience. To be fair, though, the 3D aspect does make the flick worth it. Just barely. While I would not recommend the picture to anyone watching the film in a non-3D theater, the 3D is fun to watch. The Real3D is impressive, as the entire flick feels deep and multi-dimensional. This is not your old-school 3D film where there's an occasional knife stabbing its way to an inch in front of your eyes; every scene is three-dimensional, even when there's no gimmick to be had. That being said, there are several moments where a flying pick axe swings its way toward you, a bullet practically makes you cross eyed, or blood splatters out of the screen. Horror flicks are prime for a gimmick like this, because you rarely expect serious production values anyway. At the same time, if you're expecting lots of in-your-face antics, you may be disappointed. It may just be that the screen I watched the flick on was rather small, but I've seen better 3D effects at the Muppets Show at Disneyland.
Even with the 3D, though, the story is hard to take at time. The characters are so poorly developed that it's hard to like any of them. The revelation of the killer does remain unclear until the very end thanks to some crafty back-and-forth efforts by the screenwriters, but ultimately they cop-out on doing something intelligent by deceiving the audience at the most basic level. The director should never lie to the audience unless we know to expect it; what happens at the end of My Bloody Valentine 3D is completely stupid, and not even executed very well.
Ackles, by the way, turns in the worst performance of his short career.
Having just watched the original 1981 flick a couple weeks ago, I do respect that some efforts were made to not simply copy that film. At the same time, if you're going to deviate from the source material, you should improve upon it - and that is not the case here. While the original was nothing spectacular, it worked well enough and actually featured a pretty creepy ending. My Bloody Valentine 3D botches the ending, offers little in the way of frightening moments or suspense and is only as good as the three-dimensional gimmick allows. The flick is worth seeing if you have 3D glasses and a group of friends who like B-grade horror flicks, but that still doesn't make it a great flick.
It looks like Channing Tatum is gunning for our next list of badass greats. He’s racking up plenty of action roles, which some find surprising given his “Step Up” past. But come on — would you actually dare to mock this guy for his dancing skills? I didn’t think so.
According to Variety, Tatum is set to star in “The Brotherhood of the Rose,” an adaptation of the David Morrell thriller. He’ll play one of two orphans raised by a CIA operative, and trained to become an assassin. Both boys become targets themselves in a game of double-crossing and deadly espionage.
(Here it should be pointed out that Morrell was the father of Rambo — he wrote the novel “First Blood,” which turned into a little action flick you might have seen. So now you know what kind of blood and guts you’re in for.)
Dito Montiel will write and direct the film for Warner Bros. He’s obviously a Tatum fan, since he just directed him in “Fighting,” which hits theaters on April 24. Tatum will also be seen as Duke in “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” and Pretty Boy Floyd in “Public Enemies.” Gangsters, GI Joes, fighters, and assasins — we get it, Channing. We’ll pencil you on the list for our badass showdown in 2020.
MTV readers, are you excited to see Tatum do something besides dance? Or are all these action roles a bit too much, and you’d rather see him show his soft side in romances like “Dear John”?
During a recent interview with MTV News, Michael Cera refuted rumors that he was the lone hold-out on an “Arrested Development” flick. At least one man at the top agrees. Speaking with MTV, Ron Howard laughed off any sign of worry that Michael Cera won’t be onboard for a big-screen feature. Despite the long-gestating nature of the project, the “Frost/Nixon” director remained positive.
“There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm within the cast,” said Howard. Asked if he thought the original “Arrested Development” cast would be reassembled for the film, he was optimistic. “I think so. I haven’t spoken to everybody, but everybody loved doing the show.”
However, there is definitely a disconnect somewhere between the show’s narrator-cum-film-director/producer and Cera, if the “Juno” star’s opinions are to be believed. Then again, Howard may know something he’s not telling. Whatever an “Arrested Development” cast looks like, though, it’s going to be noticeably amputated if Cera’s character, George-Michael, is a no-show.
As Howard indicated, though, the project is still in its early stages, so there is probably still time to wrangle those cast members who might still need convincing.
“Mitch Hurwitz is working on the script right now,” Howard cautioned. “Everybody is excited, but it’s not a ‘go’ flick.” The director also expressed faith in Hurwitz’s rapport with the cast as the show’s creator.
“When we really know what people’s schedules are, really know what the screenplay is, I’m sure Mitch will connect with everybody,” he assured.
Do you expect to see Michael Cera back at George-Michael for an “Arrested Development” film? What options do you think Hurwitz and Howard have if he declines? Weigh in with your thoughts in the comment section!
The Underworld series gets the prequel treatment with this third outing that fleshes out the story of the ancient war between the vampiric Death Dealers and their werewolf counterparts, the Lycans. F/X technician Patrick Tatopoulos (Godzilla, Independence Day) steps out of the effects lab and into the director's chair.
An ex-soldier (Liam Neeson) traveling through Europe embarks on a frantic quest to rescue his daughter (Maggie Grace) after the young girl is abducted by slave traders in District B13 director Pierre Morel's contemporary thriller Taken. Robert Mark Kamen joins the screenwriting team, which also includes Morel and longtime collaborator Luc Besson.
Author Cornelia Funke's best-selling children's novel comes to vivid life on the big screen with this family-friendly tale about a bookbinder whose storytelling skills possess the curious power to transport the characters he speaks about into the real world. When a nefarious villain from a bedtime story that the father is currently reading to his diary.
The funny thing about trying to stay up to date on all the Kim Kardashian stories out there is that there really isn't any real news about her. It's just the latest pap shots of her wearing tight clothes, getting out of her car, talking on her cellphone, photo opp at a club. That's it. She doesn't get herself into too much trouble like Lindsay or Pariz or Britney, so why all this fascination with her?
Now, I know why I'M fascinated. It's because I'm in love with her. Passionately so. And checking out her pics daily is enough to ward off my stalker tendencies. But what about all of you? I haven't figured it out why America loves her. She is by far the number one viewed celeb on this site.
Apatow has made a fortune off sensitive slackers with potty mouths and encyclopedic knowledge of pop culture, but Smith paved the way for him. Their worlds collide in “Zack and Miri Make a Porno.”
One of my most anticipated flicks of the fall, Blindness is from director Fernando Meirelles, best known for City of God and The Constant Gardener. A man with amazing vision and the ability to create absolutely beautiful and deep pieces of work, I had high hopes for the apocalyptic picture. Unfortunately, the flick didn't quite hit the mark.
Blindness stars Julianne Moore as a woman who wakes up one morning to find that her husband (Mark Ruffalo) has been infected by a patient and can no longer see. As they quickly discover, the disease has become an epidemic and spread through the country. The government acts quickly and decides to quarantine the unfathomable illness by putting its victims in an old asylum. Strangely, the government decides not to put any of its employees in harm's way, and instead leaves these blind people to fend for themselves. As the asylum's inhabitants expand in numbers, the place turns into a crap-infested boiling pot, as the various wards turn against one another to horde food. The fall from innocence is swift, creating a dangerous situation where no one can be trusted. However, there is one variable few of them know: that the doctor's wife (Moore) can still see.
The picture is a disturbing one, as Meirelles doesn't shy away from showing the people's desperation and misery (shit, literally, is everywhere, people wander around naked, etc.). The asylum turns into a breeding ground for rape, corruption and murder. While there are good people, there are bad people, too.
The flick, based on the novel by José Saramago, explores some interesting issues, and also introduces a series of imaginative events. However, there is something about the picture that I just didn't buy. It's hard to pinpoint, but my general reaction is that the development of events happens too suddenly. The government throws the afflicted into a building and then just ignores them, with no interest in solving the problem or helping them? It just didn't make much sense. The flick needed another twenty minutes tacked on to the beginning to develop the characters and circumstances; as is, things felt rushed and unrealistic.
As things developed, I still wasn't totally engaged in the picture. While I could certainly fathom things crumbling at the seams, the blind people seem overly helpless; a little more focus on the things that the people do to accommodate themselves would have helped me connect with the characters, because as is they came off as cowardly and pathetic. When the Third Ward begins charging for food - and then start demanding women in exchange for food - the other wards just seem to shrug and give in. Perhaps the idea was to relay a sense of hopelessness, but I didn't buy it.
Unfortunately, Meirelles' beautiful cinematography is all but missing from the picture. The director takes the film's title way too literally, as the flick often doesn't look that good. Furthermore, the picture seems to be intentionally edited in a fragmented way, leaving us to connect the pieces. Blindness seems to have been made by an entirely different director. Furthermore, I wouldn't say the acting is anything to scream about; while not bad, none of the actors stand out in any way or form; even Gael García Bernal, who has a surprisingly small role, doesn't make an impact.
Nevertheless, complaints aside, Blindness is a dark and disturbing trip into an apocalyptic world that works if you let it. The final third of the film is particularly mesmerizing, despite lacking the same focus and intensity as the rest of the picture. Had Meirelles added another 20 to 30 minutes to the picture, it could have been a truly effective epic; instead, it's just a decent look at a what-if situation.
Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro team up once again in the new serial killer flick Righteous Kill, an event that should be exciting for any film fan. Unfortunately, someone invited Al's new favorite director Jon Avnet to the party.
Avnet last directed Pacino in this year's 88 Minutes, and what a cluster that was. My thinking was that perhaps Avnet had learned from his mistakes with that one (poor pacing, weak story and shoddy directing) and made a masterpiece with Righteous Kill, but what I discovered about three minutes into the film was that mathematics work. What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? Here's the function: Al Pacino (positive) times Jon Avnet (negative) equals a negative. Al Pacino (positive) times Robert DeNiro (positive) times Jon Avnet (negative) equals...a bigger negative. Yes, Righteous Kill is that bad.
The flick is about two longtime partners who are assigned to a case to investigate the deaths of several bad guys. Poetry is left behind, and it's clear that a serial killer is at work. Of course, since the victims are all creeps, the logical conclusion is that the killer is, in fact, a police officer. Is it Donnie Wahlberg, who is upset that this fall he has to star in this flick rather than a Saw sequel? Or is it John Leguizamo, who wonders how get screwed over by starring in the one Pacino/DeNiro film that sucks? Or is it one of the esteemed actors, who realized that their fading careers have, in fact, led them to this painful juncture in life? Or is it someone else?
While neither DeNiro or Pacino is great here, the real problem is the screenplay by Russell Gewirtz and the direction by Avnet. It's amazing that Gewirtz can produce such a smart and edgy film like Inside Man and then follow it up with a complete pile of crap. Righteous Kill lacks the originality and complexity that DeNiro and Pacino so desperately need to satisfy fans. Of course, a bad director can massacre a decent script - or make a travesty out of a bad one - and Avent is that director. His decision to show flashbacks, therefore effectively killing any pacing or plausibility of the picture, is disastrous. It became obvious to me who the killer was within the first few minutes, and that is not good. To make matters worse, the flick lacks suspense, excitement and energy, three things I was really looking forward to with Pacino and DeNiro together.
Basically, Righteous Kill is a disappointing waste of time. I didn't go in with huge hopes, but I figured a DeNiro/Pacino flick had to be decent. I was wrong. There's no sense of greatness or power when the two are on the screen, and maybe that's because they have so little to do. Righteous Kill is boring and predictable.
It looks like Channing Tatum is gunning for our next list of badass greats. He’s racking up plenty of action roles, which some find surprising given his “Step Up” past. But come on — would you actually dare to mock this guy for his dancing skills? I didn’t think so.
