X-Men Origins : Wolverine | Official Trailer!

X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE HD

Next year's lineup of summer blockbusters doesn't seem as hot as this years or better still last year's, but there are some pretty good ones in there. I cannot wait for Watchmen, to be honest, and Transformers 2 is next in line. Terminator Salvation looks like a boatload of fun, and so does 2012. And then there's this guy played by Hugh Jackman. Feral, roughneck, animalistic, and full of rage. Yep, Wolverine gets his own flick come May 1 2009 and here's the film's official trailer.

I'm really liking how Hugh Jackman has dived into the character and amped up the pissed-off aura. Nice. This is the best he's looked as Logan / Wolverine. Gambit looks cool (although I still say Josh Holloway would have been a better 'ragin' Cajun'). And as for the rest of the cast, they look incredibly cheap. Will.i.Am? Maggie Q? Ryan Reynolds? Sure, Reynolds makes an awesome Deadpool but these faces are so familiar that they do nothing but make this flick look like a celebrity TV commercial. Will.i.Am? Seriously? Are they gonna' feature one of his songs during the credits? Will.i.Am?!

The last time I set my hopes too high on an X-Men movie I was disappointed beyond belief. And let's not even bring Spider-Man into this. Ugh. So far Wolverine looks decent, if not pretty good, and I'm hoping the flick turns out to be something I'd like to own on DVD as well. We'll just have to wait and see how this plays out. Mind you, next to the Bat, Wolverine is my favorite comic book character.

You can watch the trailer in HD glory on their MySpace page HERE (you'll have to add them to as friends, though), or you could wait until the official site has it up over HERE.

Quarantine [2008] | REVIEW

In an era where horror is looked upon as the 'quick-buck' genre and scary movies are normally more boring or funny than actually being frightening, there comes a film that takes horror up a notch and proves to us that when done right, horror films can really send your internals trembling from fear. I had plenty of expectations before watching Quarantine because of its tempting trailer and I think you would've guessed by now that I was very pleased, and am still shuddering, after watching it. Quarantine is a true-to-the-core, straight to the point horror flick that deserves a viewing.

This Flick Is About...
--------------------------------
Reporter Angela Vidal (Jennifer Carpenter) and her cameraman Scott Percival (Steve Harris) are doing a report on the night shift of a Los Angeles fire station, when suddenly the crew is called upon to rescue an injured old woman from an apartment. Angela and Scott follow the firemen into the apartment only to witness first hand the killing of an armed policeman by the old woman herself, who looks to have been infected by some kind of sickness. They soon find out that all the apartment's residents have been locked in from the outside and there is much more brewing inside that they could possibly imagine.
----------------------------------

While horror may not be my favorite genre, I've always appreciated directors who could deliver a proper frightfest. By that I don't mean excessive gore or a 90-minute slideshow of hideous faces, but rather a story-based movie that uses the elements of our worst fears to give an audience something that'll really haunt them for days to come. That is why people watch a scary movie, isn't it?

Quarantine is the Hollywood remake of the 2007 Spanish blockbuster, [REC] which received a massive amount of positive reviews from critics and audiences alike, making it one of Spain's greatest-known films and an instant cult classic. [REC] has even been spoofed and a teaser poster for a sequel was recently revealed. [REC] is currently infamous for delivering a super-real movie experience to horror fans in Spain and also internationally, rivaling the ghoulishly gritty stuff that comes out of Japan and the Asian region. And while those who have watched [REC] will certainly not enjoy Quarantine due to it being almost 98% similar to the original, it still holds up as a very solid frightener in the books of horror fans. The 'shaky camera' technique seems to be getting popular around filmmakers, and while Cloverfield is more popular today for causing nausea and dizziness, Quarantine sticks to the safezone and doesn't go overboard with the shakiness, making it watchable by almost anyone. That being said, the 'shaky camera' is the pivotal aspect of the film that gives it the edge it needs. It creates a sense of uncanny realisticness.

Quarantine doesn't have any background music, which is something that makes perfect sense. Imagine if it did have music. How lame would that be? It would crush the entire atmosphere of the flick into a pulp. Instead, Quarantine integrates hyper-real sound effects, giving it that extra sense of reality. The acting is top-notch. It's sad how these relative unknowns get no recognition whatsoever after movies like Quarantine and Cloverfield. Sure, there are no Daniel-Day Lewises in there but it isn't easy playing a normal person. It isn't easy pulling off extremely natural emotions and reactions. You have to work extra hard to make sure you're not overdoing anything because exaggerated acting is acceptable in dramatic films, but not in flicks like Quarantine that play off as 'legitimate footage'. The entire cast do an excellent job playing a group of trapped apartment residents who know nothing of what's happening and only have a limited amount of space to run and hide in.

Speaking of limited space, the claustrophobic technique does justice to yet another horror movie! This is the gazzilionth time I'm saying this, but the 'trapped in a small space' feel works wonders in horror movies. Running from a killer in an open field is one thing, but running from a bloodthirsty predator inside a closed environment with nowhere to run is an all new ballgame.

Ask me and I'd definitely suggest giving Quarantine a good viewing. It's worth the time and money. If you're the daring type then watch it at night, alone, in the dark. If it's playing at the local cinema, all the better, because this film can be destroyed with interruptions like the mailman or the dog barking or that phonecall that always comes in during the climax of any film.

This film is not for those who are easily frightened by horror movies and a big 'no-no' for those who avoid horror films because of the fear that the scenes will haunt them at night. Take my word for it, the scenes in Quarantine or even [REC] will most definitely stick in your memory for some time. They'll make their presence known when you're walking to your car in the empty carpark after working late, and you'll probably feel silly for carrying that baseball-bat-shaped steering lock around 'just in case'. But that's what makes horror films so great, doesn't it? It's the fact that they really give you the chills.

------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Quarantine a whopping 4.3 out of 5.0. Some people will say that that's unfair considering it isn't in the league of any major blockbusters. I beg to differ because I don't compare Quarantine with Man On Fire or There Will Be Blood or Children Of Men. I compare Quarantine with other horror movies like 30 Days Of Night, I Am Legend, Cloverfield, and The Mist. In those respects, Quarantine is a very gritty horror movie that delivers what it said it would. Any flick that rattles your bones, triggers your adrenaline, and sends your heart skipping a beat every 10minutes is a successful horror movie. And Quarantine is a very disturbing, fear-inflicting, edge-of-your-seat thriller that will keep your fingernails in between your teeth from start to finish.

The Happening [2008] | REVIEW

"What just happened?" was the question on most people's minds after they had a viewing of The Happening and no, they were not referring to the film's storyline. And they were not in a positive mood. The question was more like, "What the f**k was that all about?!" It's safe to say that M.Night Shyamalan's latest project turned out to be his worst so far, trailing a series of letdowns that came after Signs. Personally, I enjoyed The Village and had a really good time watching Lady In The Water. I'm not sure why these movies tanked so badly but I'm guessing a lot of moviegoers expect a lot from Mr.Shyamalan after the masterpiece that was The Sixth Sense.

This Flick Is About...
--------------------------------
In Central Park, New York City, people inexplicably begin committing mass suicide. First they become disoriented and motionless, before resorting to the most convenient means of killing themselves. Initially believed to be a bioterrorist attack, the pandemic quickly spreads across the northeastern United States. Elliot Moore (Mark Wahlberg), a high school science teacher in Philadelphia, receives news of the pandemic at school and decides to leave the city by train with his estranged and well-nigh-unfaithful wife, Alma Moore (Zooey Deschanel). They are accompanied by his friend and fellow teacher Julian (John Leguizamo) and his eight-year-old daughter Jess (Ashlyn Sanchez). The train abruptly stops in the small town of Filbert, Pennsylvania, after the crew mysteriously loses radio contact with civilization.
---------------------------------

I skipped The Happening in cinemas and decided to give it a go on DVD in spite of all the awful reviews I had heard from people who paid for tickets at the local theaters. I had nil expectations and decided to see just how badly M.Night screwed this one up. To my surprise, this flick isn't all that bad. In fact it's quite fun, but maybe that's because I expected next to nothing from it. Let's dwell.

I'm not a big fan of Mark Wahlberg. The man just puts me off. I've seen some of his interviews and he's kinda' like a big, pompous jerk. I think the role that best portrays him is his role from The Departed; arrogant, cocky, brash, and just your average dose of jackassism. Mark just comes off as a Matt Damon wannabe with some elements of John Cena in his tone of speech. Maybe because he's from Boston, too? He's always going on and on about how badass he is and how he loves bashin' heads just because he's from Boston. Come on! You're a grown man with kids and a wife and a decent family! Bashing heads in movies doesn't make you a badass! Jeez louise! John Cena, Matt Damon, and Mark Wahlberg would make awesome brothers if they acted in the same flick; with Wahlberg being the a$$hole of the lot. The very fact that his brother is one of the New Kids On The Block just repulses me! Have you seen the new old New Kids On The Block? They're not friggin' kids anymore! They're all buff, bearded, and are a bunch of losers who dropped out of mainstream radio the day boybands died! And the fans that attend their 'make-a-quick-buck-reunion-concerts' are aunts and 45-year old women / virgins!

Anyway...back to Wahlberg. Yes, I don't like him, but I can't help but like his character in The Happening. It's a different Wahlberg in there. A better, calmer, more down-to-earth Wahlberg. And it's nice. It'd also be cool if he was like that in real life, so I wouldn't have to endure his "I like beating on people" interviews whenever I'm watching Jimmy Kimmel Live!.

While I liked The Happening to a large extent, I agree that it is probably M.Night's worst movie to date. I'm a big fan of his and I like the way he makes his films but there's just something that doesn't click with The Happening. The acting? The way it's shot? I don't know. It comes off as a very amateurish project; something that would have made bank if it was Shyamalan's first attempt to break into mainstream Hollywood. The story isn't too bad. It's thrilling and keeps you wondering, but it isn't frightening enough is most cases. The idea behind the film is scary, yes. The thought of an event like this really happening (no pun intended) sends shivers down my spine but the film itself isn't so fear-inducing. There's a lot more gore compared to M.Night's previous projects (it is his first R-rated project), and more so since I checked out the Unrated Edition on DVD. But overall, there's nothing too great about The Happening.

I don't know if it's just me, but I find the acting in The Happening very awkward. I'm not sure if it's that or the way the shots are composed or even if I should call it unique, but the whole movie moves forward in a very odd manner. The acting is supposedly very natural but to me it seems too rehearsed, or too pushed. Some scenes were a tad corny and some were just blatantly, what's the word for it, weird. Maybe M.Night composed those scenes as such on purpose. Maybe not. It doesn't really harm the movie in any way because at times it seems very realistic, but at times also just comes off as awkward and not how someone would react or respond to a certain event.

On another note, Zooey Deschanel is adorable!

The soundtrack for The Happening is something I really love. It's amazing how it compliments the visuals. The tunes are more symphonic and melodic, all played in low key to give it that depressing feel. It creates an aura of tragedy and sadness throughout the movie. It's awesome.

There's isn't much more to say about The Happening other than the fact that M.Night could have done better. He's taking a step away from his safezone with Avatar, which seems promising enough. Hopefully M.Night sees more happy faces with that one. He's also producing six or seven horror-based mini-movies (I think that's what they're called) called The Night Series. All movies supposedly interlock with one another in some way and will be directed by different directors. It looks like M.Night is going the Stephen King / Spielberg way with this approach.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give The Happening a 3.0 out of 5.0. It isn't as bad as most people claimed and it definitely didn't suck balls or whatever. There's a good basis to the story, some frights here and there, and somewhat realistic / unique / odd / experimental acting in a lot of scenes. The soundtrack was good, visuals were decent. The Happening is a disturbing take on what the apocalypse may be and makes for a fun popcorn flick for a Friday night at home.

P.S : The tagline for this movie reads, "We've Sensed It. We've Seen The Signs. Now...It's Happening."

How corny is that, eh?

'Batman' Sues Warner Bros!

And no, I'm not talking about Gotham City's silent guardian. Apparently there's an oil-producing city in Turkey that shares its name with the caped-crusader, and the mayor of said city has decided to 'take legal action' against both Warner Bros. and director Christopher Nolan for using the name 'Batman' without informing them.

Please hold on while I burst into uncontrollable laughter, roll on the floor, hit myself on the head with a f**kin' hammer, and sedate myself with a high dosage of sedatives to calm myself down and also reduce the intense pain my ribs feel due to said hysteria. *deep breath* *inhale* *exhale*

Now, back to our story. Although Warner Bros. has yet to issue an official statement, the trades have picked up this piece of ridiculous information and I have to say, it served pretty well as an alternative to laughing gas. Here's a snippet of the article, the juicy bits at least.

Huseyin Kalkan, the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party mayor of Batman, has accused "The Dark Knight" producers of using the city's name without permission. "There is only one Batman in the world," Kalkan said. "The American producers used the name of our city without informing us."

No one from the town of Batman has explained why it took so many years to take legal action. Batman first appeared as a comicbook character in 1939 and the "Batman" TV series started in 1966. Tim Burton's first bigscreen rendition for Warner Bros. came out in 1989. Undoubtedly the fact that "Dark Knight" is about to pass the $1 billion mark at the B.O. played a part in stirring the ire of the Turkish hamlet.

The mayor is prepping a series of charges against Nolan and Warner Bros., which owns the right to the Batman character, including placing the blame for a number of unsolved murders and a high female suicide rate on the psychological impact that the film's success has had on the city's inhabitants.

Former natives of Batman are also said to have encountered obstacles when attempting to register their businesses abroad.

It took these guys 70 years to realize that their city shared names with one of the world's most popular superheroes, and yes, The Dark Knight's ridiculous chunk of boxoffice money definitely has something to do with it, but I'm betting this crazy courtcase goes nowhere! And they're blaming crime rates on Batman movies, too? I blame aliens for bringing The Backstreet Boys back because God knows they've passed their prime by a lightyear...who should I sue, huh?

James Bond : Quantum Of Solace | REVIEW

I'm not big on the whole James Bond series. I like a lot of the movies in the franchise, my favorite being Casino Royale. I know a lot of people dislike 'Royale because it isn't James-Bond-ish enough without the unbelievably high-tech gadgetry and invisible cars but I seemed to enjoy it a whole lot. I like the way Daniel Craig brings a new, fresh side to Bond. When it comes to Quantum Of Solace though, he's the only good thing that the film has to offer in terms of performance and overall showmanship. Coming out of Quantum I felt terribly disappointed and utterly confused at what I had just witnessed. Let me just say that this isn't going to be a positive review.

This Flick Is About...
-------------------------------------------
Quantum of Solace (2008) is the 22nd James Bond film by EON Productions. The sequel to the 2006 film Casino Royale, it is directed by Marc Forster, and features Daniel Craig's second performance as James Bond. In the film, Bond battles Dominic Greene (Mathieu Amalric), a member of the Quantum organisation posing as an environmentalist, who intends to stage a coup d'état in Bolivia to take control of its water supply. Bond seeks revenge for the death of Vesper Lynd, and is assisted by Camille Montes (Olga Kurylenko).
-------------------------------------------

I was surprised to see the amount of publicity and advertising tie-ins Quantum received. To me it looked as if Quantum was very much under the radar for a significant amount of time until recently with only an average amount of promotion going on. Apparently I was wrong and Quantum Of Solace had made tie-ins with Sony HD, Shell Petroleum, Heinz, and a whole bunch of other major brands, some of which have their own custom ads with Daniel Craig in them. I guess they were betting on the success that Quantum was sure to have. I'm not sure how good it's going to fare overall but to me this is a movie I'm bound to forget over the next year or so.

Quantum Of Solace doesn't feel like a standalone movie. It doesn't have the qualities of an individual movie nor does it have anything definitive to look forward to. It felt very much like an extension of Casino Royale; like something that would fit perfectly if inserted in the 'Special Collector's Edition Director's Cut with over 60-minutes of Extended Footage' DVD. And worst of all, it doesn't feel at all like a James Bond movie. While Casino Royale was grittier than any Bond film before it, it still portrayed Daniel Craig as a very suave, charming secret agent...and those characteristics are essential in order to come off as James Bond. People have to understand that an established character such as James Bond can be modified over the ages but cannot be completely altered. In Quantum Of Solace we see very little of Bond's 'Casanova' traits and way too much of a revenge-seeking secret-agent gone crazy. There are no sporty cars, no fancy gadgetry, no slick weapons, and yes, the Bond babes have been gritti-fied as well. It just takes away from the flow of the franchise and gives us somewhat of an alternate version of the man with a license to kill.

While I like gritty drama and deep storylines, Quantum Of Solace isn't exactly the movie in which I wanted to see either of those. I enjoyed the feel of Casino Royale and it was a highly entertaining flick to say the least but its sequel almost put me to sleep. The plot is too complicated for its own good and the character development feels rushed. It's a mixture of typical action-flick with the intelligence of a Bourne movie multiplied by 10. And that's not good. Nobody walks into a 007 film wanting an overdose of story. We want a good story, a smart plot, major twists, a superbad villain, a hot Bond babe or two, some slick weaponry, and cars so expensive that they'd even bag the hottest chicks for ugly people. That's Bond. James Bond.

The soundtrack for Quantum Of Solace isn't anything special. Heck it's not even worthy of a Bond film. It's not catchy and it doesn't stick out in any way.

The action is good but not distinctive. It feels repetitive. We've seen this stuff in Casino Royale already! The fight scenes are also nothing to look forward to. There's nothing new that this movie has to offer in terms of stunts or big action scenes except for one or two still hardly memorable instances. I read somewhere that Dominic, the major baddie in Quantum Of Solace, is meant to be a major step away from other Bond villains. He's meant to be the villain in disguise; a lay person in the eyes of the people. Seriously, I didn't know he was the villain at all until halfway through the flick when I realized that I'm not gonna' get to see the real villain because there was none. This Dominic person hardly seems like a threat at all. He's bad but not bad enough to oppose James Bond. How would you feel if they made a movie about Superman battling some bank robber? Not very entertaining, is it?

I'm sure Quantum Of Solace will do well because of the name value it carries and a lot of people will adore this new title in the Bond line of films because of how gritty it is and how much darker it is compared to Casino Royale but I'm certainly not on that bandwagon. Casino Royale was as gritty as it could get for me in terms of a James Bond movie. Anything more wouldn't seem like a Bond movie at all. Quantum Of Solace crossed that line and guess what...I came out wondering if what I saw in there was really a James Bond movie or just something else with Daniel Craig in it.

James Bond is too gritty in Quantum. He's also too sad, too angry, too upset, and very heartbroken. I understand that that's how someone would react after the events of Casino Royale but come on, people! This is James 'f**kin' Bond we're talkin' about...he doesn't have to pull a Daniel Day Lewis on all of us. Everyone is upset in this movie. M is upset, James is upset, the babes are very upset, the villains are upset, some older characters come in and even they're upset! Where's the fun, then? Sure, it's a rebooted gritty take on the Bond films but there's surely room for some fun, right? This movie's just full of anger and vengeance being vented out in every direction possible and it isn't fun anymore.

Hopefully Bond 23 will have more to offer. Hopefully it lightens up, offers more coolness, and delivers a story that is smart yet understandable. I'm not ashamed to say that I understood very little of what was happening in Quantum Of Solace and you could ask me right now and I'd answer clearly that I don't even know what the heck the 'Quantum of Solace' even means! This isn't a movie I'm gonna' watch again (not anytime soon anyway), and like I said, it feels very much like an extension of Casino Royale. It feels nothing like a good sequel and it definitely isn't solid enough to stand on its own two legs.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Quantum Of Solace gets a 2.8 out of 5.0. It had some decent visuals and a couple of good (but not memorable) action scenes. Daniel Craig did a great job at least. His acting was really good and although he wasn't really the Bond that I was expecting, he did a great job being pissed off. I bet the audience could really sense his anger coming off the screen. He's probably the only thing that saves this film, in my opinion.

Why 'Rhodey' Was Recast In Iron Man

There's been a lot of talk lately on why Terrence Howard was booted off Iron Man 2, and it has been a 50-50 deal so far. Some sources side Terrence whereas some side Marvel Studios and even support the 'out with Howard, in with Cheadle' move. As of now, Don Cheadle has been confirmed as the replacement for Terrence Howard and needless to say Cheadle's gonna' be the one who steps into the uber-awesome WarMachine armour that was so shamelessly hinted in Iron Man. A recent article on Entertainment Weekly has this to say about the situation:

Hollywood insiders believe the exit stems from Terrence Howard's difficult behavior on the set of Iron Man. But those with intimate knowledge of the situation suggest a far more dramatic backstory: Howard was the first actor signed to the film and, on top of that, was the highest-paid. That's right: more than Gwyneth Paltrow. More than Jeff Bridges. More than Robert Downey Jr. And once the project fully came together, it was too late to renegotiate his deal. It didn't help that, according to one source, Favreau and his producers were ultimately unhappy with Howard's performance, and spent a lot of time cutting and reshooting his scenes. (Favreau could not be reached for comment, while Howard's publicist says: ''Terrence had a tremendous experience working on Iron Man.'')

So basically it says that Terrence Howard was being a glorified @$$hole on set. I'm not so sure I believe whatever Entertainment Weekly has to say because Howard doesn't look like a person who'd be a prick, but then again who am I to judge. Surprisingly enough, fans of the series seem pretty happy about Marvel's decision. Also surprising is that a large majority have commented on Terrence Howard's voice being too 'sissy' for the role. If you ask me, continuity means a lot. Recasting a side character doesn't create such an impact but recasting someone as integral as Col' Jim 'Rhodey' Rhodes (who eventually becomes Iron Man's most trusted sidekick') is a major mistake. It'd just seem weird after this. Terrence and Downey had already established their chemistry with each other on Iron Man. Seeing Cheadle suddenly step in would be awkward to say the least. But all that being said, given the choice, I would have voted for Don Cheadle to be cast as Jim Rhodes from the start. I didn't like Marvel's decision at first, but come to think of it, the man is taller, more muscular, and seems to fit in the role of Tony Stark's friend better than Terrence did. I'd like to say there's a certain quality to Don, but I'm not so sure what it is.

For The Love Of GOD, man!

Before you even begin to think that this is a review of the (laughs) third installment in the Anaconda series, I ask of you to not to insult me. Why in the name of all things holy would I review Anaconda 3? It's probably as entertaining as getting stabbed. In the face. Multiple times. But I may review this film one day, but I have a life right now and Anaconda 3: Offspring was only just released on DVD, which means it would be incredibly lame, pathetic, and sinful of me to actually even take a look at this piece of crap so soon.

Maybe one day when Hollywood no longer exists, or the day before Armageddon, or when someone offers me a new house, a key to the Playboy Mansion, a new BMW and a shipload of money...maybe then I'll watch Anaconda 3: The Offspring. Or maybe it'll just be on a day when I'm in the mood for some laughs via unintentional comedy.

Anyway, the reason I brought up this post is because there are mysteries in the world that need solving, and fast. One of them is why David 'Multitasking' Hasselhoff would even sign on for this movie. It looks like something I could produce with the pocket money that I saved for over the last 10 days. It takes no brains, some cameras, Final Cut Pro trial version, and Photoshop for that f**kin' cheesy-cheap poster. I mean what the @#$%, right? Can you imagine the brainstorming that must've taken place to conjure up Anaconda 3?

Director : Hey so, let's make Anaconda 3 because...well, it's easy and I wouldn't have to write a script which also means I don't need any writers.
Crewmember : Yeah cool....that's revolutionary AND environmental friendly 'cause no script means no paper...hence no trees need to die.
Director : Yes, that too. So...it's Monday today and I have....let's see, eighty-seven bucks in my wallet and a twenty dollar bill in my piggy bank so...let's get rollin' fellas!
David Hasselhoff : Wait...what do I get paid?
Director : Paid?
David Hasselhoff : Yes, paid. For acting in your snake gig.
Director : You're David Hasselhoff...why on Earth would anyone pay you anything anymore? Heck, you should pay us to be in this!
David Hasselhoff : But I thought....
Director : Silence! Now back to work. Here's the plan. Five idiots get into a jungle, lose their map and their boat and their equipment. Make sure we have a chick in there who's willing to bear her golden globes for free. Ermmm....let's see. Yes, get the snakes to squish them just like all the other snake movies only this time *snicker snicker*... the snake also BITES them! It has fangs, surprise!!

(excited mummer in the meeting room)

Director : Oh and since we don't have any money...make sure the CGI isn't too costly. Make the snakes look like they were cut out of some cheap Playstation 2 videogame or something. Alright, people....let's get ourselves up and rollin' and we'll have that DVD out by next week, max!

Okay so maybe it wouldn't have been exactly like that. It would have been even funnier. But hey, for those of you out there who don't care about your eyes, I suggest you go pick up this thing. It's a perfect way to go blind on purpose. And if you actually pay for this movie, E-Mail me and tell me about it. I could refer you to the nearest psychiatrist 'cause there is definitely something wrong with anyone who takes out any amount of cash for Anaconda 3.

OH, and if that isn't enough, this was shot back to back with....Anaconda 4 : We're Retarded. Anaconda 3 is out on DVD and will play on some TV station in the US sometime soon whereas Anaconda 4 gets released on TV and DVD sometime next year. Unbelievable.

Is 'Batman 3' Already In Pre-Production?!

Call me whatever you wanna' call me but I've never been so hyped about a piece of news as I am right now. Well, maybe I was this hyped when I read about news regarding The Dark Knight prior to its release. Yeah, I guess I was. But who cares...I'm stoked again so here it is:

Numerous sources from within Chicago are stating that pre-production for the third installment in Christopher Nolan's record-setting Batman series will start as early as .... (wait for it, wait for it).... January 2009! Wha..? How? Why? Which? Where? Honestly, I don't know but that's what all the buzz is about. A bunch of crew members have already been called for hire regarding the third installment and trustworthy sources such as BatmanOnFilm have been able to get a word or two out of these people, who claim that pre-production will commence in January with filming beginning as early as summer 2009! As much as I'd like to believe that this is true, I also don't wanna' get caught up in a wave of rumors that are going to turn out to be just that; plain ol' rumors.

My logic tells me that these are just rumors blown out of proportion. The fact is writers David Goyer and Jonathan Nolan have denied the existence of a finished screenplay. Director Christopher Nolan hasn't even spoken since The Dark Knight's release and sources claim he's on a long vacation. He hasn't even signed yet. Christian Bale hasn't signed on yet. So how would anyone start pre-production if any of these huge pieces of the puzzle haven't boarded the ship yet? Again, I don't know. But weirder things have happened so I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe they kept in under wraps on purpose? Maybe Batman 3 was planned all along? Who knows, right.

Either way, there's a very small possibility that Batman 3 will be released in 2010. A 2011 release date is more likely, despite the fact that they may begin principal photography by summer next year. We'll just have to wait and see.

Will the 'Hulk' Be A Villain? + Captain America Makes Cameos!

If you've read a bunch of The Avengers comic books you'd know that in a number of instances the big green behemoth we call 'The Hulk' has posed a threat to his own team due to his lack of control over his own powers and instincts. This was even writen into the storyline for the Ultimate Avengers animated movie (which is an awesome flick by the way). So there's no real surprise when ideas of the Hulk being an unofficial bad guy in the upcoming Avengers movie are being thrown around.

Mark Fergus spoke to MTV about his belief that the Hulk should be the villain in the upcoming AVENGERS movie that is being built towards: "I hope ‘The Avengers’ embraces that... You don’t want like 10 super-badass good guys fighting together. Where’s the fun in that? Let’s break it off a little. Friends or colleagues who become enemies is always an interesting thing because you know it’s based on love and friendship and that’s always the worst thing to have turn bad — is someone you actually care about and someone you actually believe in.”

**Spoiler Alert!**
Louis Leterrier added: “I left the door open for whoever’s going to direct ‘The Avengers’ with our last shot. Edward [Norton] and I, we consciously decided to make the last shot of the movie when he opens his eyes and he smirks at the camera... Is he enjoying it? Is he malicious? That’s what’s great about Edward. You don’t know if he’s a good guy or bad guy. He’s always on this edge and we’ve been sort of surfing that edge, that very thin edge during the entire movie.”
**Spoilers End Here**

This sounds pretty interesting to say the least. While I'd like to see The Hulk smash and bash with the rest of the gang, having someone like him go out of control would be awesome as well. It could be like a side-story. Either way, the Avengers is bound to be huge.

The Avengers is set for a summer 2011 release. Before that happens though, we'll have to go through Iron Man 2, Thor, The First Avenger : Captain America, and the rumored Ant-Man. There's no real sequel talk for The Incredible Hulk, but things could change.

Now for the juicy bit:
Check out these two stills. It looks like Captain America did make some rounds in both The Incredible Hulk and Iron Man. Tony Stark seems to be working on a shield of some sort with a half finished star emblem in the middle, while Cap's Hulk cameo comes to us exclusively on DVD via a scene that was deleted from the movie's theatrical release, in which Bruce Banner spots what looks like a man frozen in thick ice. Nice stuff.

'300' Sequel / Prequel Talk

There are some movies out there that just need sequels. They deserve sequels and crave sequels and can't exist as just one movie. They need closure and continuation. Imagine if Spider-Man or Iron Man or Batman Begins or Matrix Reloaded or POTC: Dead Man's Chest didn't have sequels (some of which are being made as I type this). How boring would that be, huh?

But then there are movies that don't need sequels. Not only do they not demand sequels, they shouldn't and cannot have sequels. Or even prequels, for that matter. I'm talking about movies like '300'. For those of you who haven't watched '300', please do. It's a beautiful movie and I don't mean Titanic beautiful...I'm talkin' hack and slash, visually stunning, epic beautiful. None of that mushy stuff. But as great as '300' is, it doesn't need a sequel, prequel, spin-off, TV series...nothing! It's absolutely fine the way it is and that's with just one single movie. Just one '300'. Just 2-hours of sweet blades and spears and 10,000 ways to effin' slash a sonoffab***h in half. That's '300'.

But hey, Hollywood is Hollywood and money is money so...why not make a sequel and possibly damage an awesome movie, right? There's been a lot of talk lately about a 300 sequel / prequel and needless to say, Zack Snyder as the director would be inevitable. According to the producers and Snyder himself, they've thrown some ideas around and Frank Miller is interested in penning the graphic novel as an addition to '300'. Zack says that he wouldn't direct if Miller isn't writing the graphic novel. Once that is done, the movie will be based on it. So while this seems pretty much as if the producers respect the integrity of the film, I'm still baffled as to how they're even gonna' churn a story out of this. Despite '300' literally rewriting the historical events that it was originally based on, it still is a period piece...so what more can be done there? The war afterwards? Or a story on how King Leonidas came to be the king of Sparta? His past wars, maybe? While the movie may turn out to be as stunning as '300', it's still a very unnecessary project. There's really no need for this!

When asked about reprising his role as Leonidas, Gerard Butler said that he doesn't see this project working out too well and would be skeptical about reprising the role. Finally, a dose of common sense! Gerard Butler is the man!

Speed Racer (2008) | REVIEW

I was one of the many, many people who deliberately missed Speed Racer in cinemas because of other huge summer blockbusters that were being screened at the time. I managed to get my hands on the DVD a couple of weeks ago and what I saw thereafter amazed me! I honestly regret not watching Speed Racer in a theater and on a bigger screen because it's a beautiful movie. It's a pile of fun, there's all the elements of the age-old TV show, and the effects just blend in so well. I enjoyed the movie so much that it makes me feel bad for the Wachowskis due to the fact that Speed didn't grab as much as it should have in terms of boxoffice revenue.

This Flick Is About...(NO SPOILERS)
---------------------------------------------
Speed Racer (Emile Hirsch) is an 18-year-old whose life and love has always been racing. Racing is "in his blood": his parents, Pops (John Goodman) and Mom (Susan Sarandon), run an independent business building race cars; and his older brother, record-setting racer Rex Racer (Scott Porter), was killed in Speed's childhood in the running of the Casa Cristo, an incredibly intense cross-country racing rally notorious for rough and foul play. Before his death, Rex was rejected by his father for his choice to run the Casa Cristo, and publicly defamed for appearing to cheat underhandedly in a race. Now, Speed Racer is quickly sweeping the racing world with his artistic skill, driving the Mach 5 of his father's design, but remains interested only in the art of the race and the well-being of his family. Trouble brews when an acclaimed businessman named Royalton offers Speed a place in his multi-billion dollar racing league.
----------------------------------------------

Let me begin by saying that I was never a fan of the Speed Racer anime TV series. In fact I was never interested in this movie from the beginning thus the decision to let it pass in cinemas. But having watched the movie I can now understand why the series holds a cult following and although I know the movie deviates a lot from the cartoon, the essence is the same and I'm guessing a lot of fans were at least pleased by what the Wachowski brothers brought to the big screen. The movie has been described as 'cotton candy' because of its colors and special effects, and I agree with the term...which is not necessarily a bad thing. We've grown so accustomed to heavy plots and gritty drama that we sometimes tend to forget what movies were designed for in the first place; fun! And Speed Racer offers a bundle of fun for those willing to temporarily let go of logic, science and whatnot and just sit back, relax, and have a good time. That being said, Speed Racer was (though lighthearted) too technical for its own good. The Wachowskis try too hard to implement complicated storylines into a movie that doesn't demand it. There's too much talk about stocks, shares, industrial market values and how racing influences the growth of companies, so much so that the plot could get confusing at times. In that respect, don't take the movie too lightly and pay a little attention to the details when watching.

While some people didn't appreciate the way Speed Racer was shot which was almost completely in front of a greenscreen, therefore allowing the cartoonish effects, I simply adored it. To me it just sinks it so well with the film and turns Speed Racer into pure eye-candy. It's gaudily colorful on purpose and it creates an alternate world in which Speed and the rest of the gang live in, making the flick even more fun than if it were set in an ordinary world. The colors are vibrant and the race scenes are brilliantly done to show the velocity in which the Mark 5 travels. For those of you who own a Blu-Ray player, please take advantage of the way this movie portrays itself and watch Speed Racer in full-fledged HD; even if you end up hating the movie you'll probably love the visuals.

Speed Racer doesn't boast a stellar cast or any Oscar-worthy performances, it just brings a number of good actors together to form a family-friendly movie. Seeing Christina Ricci as a lighter character was like a breath of fresh air; she's always the brooding emotionally-tormented girl who earns the audience's sympathy in the end. This time she's just an average girl in a cartoon-like world. Matthew Fox does a great job as Racer X and Warner couldn't have asked for a better Speed than Emile. Susan Sarandon and John Goodman play perfect parents, so at least there's no bad acting in this film.

On a whole Speed Racer is a very enjoyable movie if you're a person who is able to let go of what we call 'science and logic', for as long as the film lasts. Try not to think about the physics of things and don't ponder too deep into the depth of storytelling. This flick is best enjoyed when you're able to bring out the kid inside of you. And frankly, you'll enjoy a lot more movies that way.

Unfortunately, Speed Racer's worldwide gross didn't even reach its estimated budget of about $120million. It still baffles me as to why the studios decided to release Speed Racer in the midst of blockbusters like Iron Man and Indiana Jones 4, knowing all too well what happened to Superman Returns when they gambled their fate on 'the fanboys' who were suppoed to flock into cinemas to watch the Man Of Steel fly again. Speed Racer and Superman do have a fan following and are icons in their respective genres, but characters like these are often labeled 'boyscouts' and they don't seem to garner much attention these days. A Christmas release or an early 2009 release would've fetched the film the revenue that it rightfully deserves. It was bad marketing plus stiff competition that eventually led to Speed Racer being deemed a major flop at the boxoffice, speeding out as soon as it sped in.

For those of you who haven't watched this yet, please do because it's 2+hours of lighthearted fun that has nice acting, a good storyline, and beautiful visuals. I'll definitely give Speed Racer a second watch whenever I'm free because it's worth the time. It's probably not going to win any awards but who cares, right? A good time at the movies is all we need and is all that matters anyway.
----------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : I give Speed Racer 3.8 out of 5.0. I would've given it a higher rating if it didn't complicate the plot. Not that I don't like a good storyline, but sometimes things are better kept simple. Speed Racer is a movie that I would absolutely love to see a sequel to.

Pathology (2008) | REVIEW

In my previous review I stated that Doomsday was gory beyond belief, which I now humbly take back. Pathology makes Doomsday's level of gore look somewhat mediocre and puts the word 'nauseating' on an all-new level. I decided to watch Pathology after hearing a positive word or two about it, saying the movie was chilling and a 'real thriller'. In my opinion whoever said it was 'chilling' clearly didn't understand the meaning of the word because 'disgusting' or 'repulsive' or 'vomit-inducing' would be all the more befitting. I've stated this before and I'll state it again; I like horror movies that respect the genre as an art, but I don't like movies that merely use blood and severed limbs to cause a scare or two during the course of the film. It's relatively easy to affect a person using excessive amounts of blood. Real horror isn't easy.

This Flick Is About...
------------------------------------------------------------------
A group of medical residents studying pathology devise a deadly game: to see which one of them can commit the perfect murder. When med school student Ted Grey (Milo Ventimiglia) graduates top of his class he joins one of the nation’s most prestigious Pathology programs. With talent and determination, Ted is quickly noticed by the program’s privileged and elite band of pathology interns who invite him into their crowd. Intrigued by his new friends he begins to uncover secrets he never expected and finds that he has unknowingly become a pawn in their dangerous and secret after-hours game at the morgue of who can commit the perfect undetectable murder. As Ted becomes seduced into their wild extracurricular activities the danger becomes real and he must stay one step ahead of the game before he is the next victim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

As always, it's a pretty decent plot that just doesn't form well on screen. I'm not sure what director Marc Schoelermann was trying to achieve when he made Pathology but it sure as hell wasn't intended to get people more accustomed with doctors or anyone remotely involved with the med business. What disappointed me was the fact that I expected something innovative from this film. I liked the plot and the fact that it didn't involve an army of undead people hunting down innocent med students in a locked-up facility. That would be the norm. I admired the fact that in this rare case, the bodies stay dead and the students are the ones who are up to no good. Unfortunately for me though, I started hating the film halfway into it. I hated the direction the story was taking and the overdose of dead bodies that were being gruesomely dissected for no apparent reason. A large chunk of the movie merely incorporates useless scenes of mashed internal organs and bloated brains that ooze out of half-naked people on a table. No, it's not funny and it's not amusing. Pathology sets a sense of discomfort within you and one main cause for that is the fact that you just can't bring yourself to eat or drink anything during the course of the movie. And that sucks, seriously! Popcorn, snacks, and drinks are a part of the moviegoing experience. *sigh* Maybe I should've anticipated stuff like this...seeing as it is called Pathology for a reason, right?

Another thing this movie goes a lil' overboard with is the sex. Yes, sex is a part of Hollywood and nearly all movies have some part of it embedded in them. This one has a lil' too much of it, and though I'm no boyscout myself, I know when a movie is trying to push itself via an overload of nudity. And this one has a boatload! But are they all hot? Nope. Just to clear things up; corpses are not hot or sexy no matter how nude they are. Severed people are not hot either. Alyssa Milano and Lauren Lee Smith are hot, yes, but the amount of scenes of them having sex with their respective partners were enough to lengthen the flick by a bit. Like I said, I'm no boyscout to complain about the purity of film but when there's obviously way more nudity than is needed it gets annoying. Making a good horror film is difficult to do. Making an ordinary horror show with lots of barenaked ladies is easy to do and puts money in the bank. It works, but it's not something I'd like to admire.

I think the only aspect of Pathology that got my attention is Michael Weston who plays Dr. Jake Gallo, the main villain in this movie. Then again, there really isn't a good guy in Pathology which is also a downside because you don't actually root for anyone; which is boring and messes with your sense of direction during a film. You always need someone to root for; be it a bad guy, a good guy, or an anti-hero. Back to Michael Weston. He does a good job at being bad so I guess kudos should go to him. The guy comes off as a mentally-f***ed psycho really well. And yeah, the soundtrack's pretty decent since it helps with getting the depressing mood of the film going. That's plus-point number two.

Put the whole picture together and I'd say you're better off skipping Pathology. And yes, for those of you who are easily nauseated by blood, take a step back and go watch something else. I'm not against gore in a movie but when there's way too much of it even though the scene doesn't require such a thing then it gets irritating. Sure, it's called Pathology and bodies are what make the title possible but c'mon...there are more creative ways to make a horror movie about pathology-related stuff than to show the audience one too many scenes of internal organs being brutalized! The flick is highly disturbing and will haunt your memory for some time...these aren't easy scenes to forget.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Pathology gets a 1.2 out of 5.0 because to me, it's a story that could've been finished in less than an hour yet it drags itself longer by adding sex and unnecessary gore. There's very little story and I still don't understand what the movie was trying to prove, making it something I find ineffective and downright boring. Not to mention I can't get a bunch of these images outta' my head! Damnit! So my advice is if you haven't watched this flick, there's no real need to do so at all.

God Of War Is Doomed!

It looks like my favorite videogame series of all time has been doomed to become a PG-13 insult of an adaptation on the big screen. Brett Ratner, the man who royally f*cked the X-Men franchise up the @$$, has confirmed his involvement with the God Of War movie. I literally yelled out a dozen 'No!s' when I read the news this morning and it was the equivalent of having your lil' hopes taken out of you and then having them stepped on, spat on, and puked on. Brett Ratner is that bad; I have no liking for the man nor would I care if for some reason he never made another movie ever again. Which I doubt will ever happen since the pr*ck loves to poke his nose into everything that's good in this world. By the way, this news comes from UGO. Brett hasn't confirmed his spot in the director's seat but he could be producing...all the same for me.

I don't understand how Sony would even allow someone like Ratner to take one of their most prized possessions and literally turn it into garbage. What calibre does Ratner have to begin with? What has he done so far that proves himself as an acclaimed filmmaker even? Rush Hour movies? Red Dragon? Music videos? For Mariah Carey?! Seriously? You need someone like Zack Snyder / Ridley Scott / Peter Jackson / Darren Aronofsky...someone who can visualize the size and proportion of ancient Greece and bring those breathtaking visuals to the big screen. That's calibre! That takes imagination.

The reason I adore the God Of War series is simply because it's epic in its own form. As CNN quoted "God Of War reminds us why we play videogames in the first place." And it's true. The game is story-driven, there's heavy Greek mythology involved, the hero is in fact an anti-hero who is a complete badass. He's a no-bullsh*t hack n' slash rugged to the core sonoffab*tch. There are Gods and Titans and epic battles with some of mythology's most horrid beasts. What more could a Lord Of The Rings-esque movie need?

*sigh* I guess I'll just have to play the third and final game in all its glory and then watch the franchise get raped on screen. What had the potential to turn into an epic, 10-hour long trilogy will now be nothing more than a PG-13, mediocre, brainless action flick with intentional and lots of unintentional humor, a sinfully sexy lady sidekick / love interest, and a Kratos who cracks witty jokes while trying to come off as badass. Ratner will have some hack who knows nothing about acting to portray Kratos, someone like Nathan Jones or Vin effin' Diesel, while the other characters will be played by former sitcom / TV series actors. The female lead's shoes will be filled by someone who looks like Mariah Carey if not Mariah herself. The DVD will have deleted scenes that make absolutely no sense at all and then he'll churn out a sequel that reeks of even more horsesh*t.

For those of you who don't know, God Of War tells the tale of Kratos, a former Spartan warrior and captain who pledged his allegiance to Ares in return for victory at war. Kratos' path turns into a vengeful one when he is tricked by Ares into slaying his own family. He then vows to destroy Ares and eventually bring all of Olympus down with him.

Thank you, Mr.Ratner, for being a jackass.

More Cap'n Jack Sparrow!

Yeah, it's true. Johnny Depp has officially signed the papers and will reprise his role yet again as the eccentric Captain Jack Sparrow in what is now being called Pirates Of The Caribbean 4 : Milking The Cash Cow.

There's no official title yet, no word from director Gore Verbinski, and there's a major possibility that Kiera 'I won't wear corsets' Knightly will NOT be coming back this time around...which also means that there's no use for Orlando Bloom @ William Turner anymore. But, in any event, Pirates 4 is sailing ahead and I'm pretty sure principal photography isn't very far away. Johnny Depp once said that despite his love for Jack Sparrow, he wouldn't want to return for a fourth installment or a spin-off because it would stereotype him. I guess the character made more of an impact than he had imagined, for Disney and Jerry Bruckheimer must have unloaded so much cash into his bank that Depp will now be able to purchase his very own private island somewhere in the Caribbean.

Oh wait, he already did that months ago....*sigh*

There's a lot of skeptical feelings regarding a fourth installment and rightfully so. After At Worlds End failed by a couple of inches to deliver what was promised, I guess fans feel that a trilogy is all the franchise needs. Me? I honestly wouldn't mind another Pirates flick! Something tells me the fourth installment will be much better than the third, and I'm sensing a fifth episode will inevitably ensue afterwards.

Doomsday (2008) | REVIEW

Woah...long time no update. I know. Same ol' excuse; I've been extremely busy. Anyway, I checked out the unrated version of Doomsday yesterday and decided that I have to review this flick one way or the other; it's just too damn bad to let pass! I know there are people out there who probably enjoyed the film but in all honesty, 30minutes into the movie and I began hating it! Before I go on...

This Flick Is About......
-------------------------------------------------------
Doomsday is a 2008 British science fiction action film written and directed by Neil Marshall. The film takes place in the future, where Scotland has been quarantined due to the onset of a deadly virus. When the virus emerges in London, political leaders send Major Eden Sinclair (Rhona Mitra) to Scotland to find a cure based on evidence of survivors. Sinclair and her team run into two groups of survivors, marauders and medieval warriors. This is obviously where Sinclair's mission gets tough as she has to overcome the odds that are stacked against her and derive a cure out of all the madness that has blanketed Scotland!
--------------------------------------------------------

That synopsis rocks, to say the least. It makes for a very enjoyable movie based on a specific theme with its own twists and turns. Sure, movies set during post-apocalyptic events are a dime a dozen in Hollywood and the genre itself has become somewhat of a shortcut for directors hellbent on making a mainstream breakthrough, but who doesn't enjoy a good flick based on the sort of plot described above? End Of Days? I Am Legend? Mad Max? Yeah they all have their downsides but they all make for excellent popcorn movies to say the least. Doomsday could've been in the 'enjoyable popcorn movie' league, but instead they decided to fall under the 'gritty, gruesome, and pointlessly gory' category for some reason. Let me elaborate.

See, in my opinion, there's horror / gore / disgusting-ness with a concept and then there's the type that makes no sense at all. While Doomsday markets itself as a unique take on the post-apocalyptic scenario, it falls short in every single way possible. It doesn't deliver, it doesn't entertain as much as it disgusts the audience, and it doesn't portray itself as a relatively different sort of movie. It comes off as a B-grade no- brainer that initially had the potential of being something special. The posters were good, the marketing was done well, and for some reason Europe seems more believable as a nation hit by Armageddon so Doomsday has all the right ingredients. Europe, the apocalypse, bad guys, and a hot chick. So why did it fail? Because there was a good theme, a nice plot, a solid concept, but horrible execution. What could've been pulled off in 15minutes was dragged to form a near-2 hour mesh-up of disturbingly gory scenes. It's actually hard to eat anything while watching this film. Is it really that repulsive, you might ask. Well, yeah! Without spoiling anything, I'm gonna elaborate on a single scene from Doomsday which will give you an idea of what I'm talking about. In this scene, a bunch of people fry a man, set him on their table, start to slice his crispy lil' self up and then begin having him for dinner. Want me to repeat that? Yeah, they fry the guy and then begin eating him. Unless you're Hannibal Lecter (who'd probably have an eruptive orgasm if he read what I just had to say / watched the movie), this is just way more disturbing than Doomsday should have been.

I'm not against extremely horrific films. But like I said, there's gore based on concept and then there's just pointless blood and severed limbs. I loved 300 and that had violence from start till finish. It had severed limbs...but ones that were necessary to the film. What kind of a war epic doesn't have severed limbs? What is this, a pillow fight? So in 300, gore and violence and flying heads were expected and accepted. They didn't overdo it, either. As demented as this may sound, the brutality in 300 is art in its own form. It's perfectly balanced. The same goes for movies like Saw or Hostel or something that tells you straight off that you should expect eyes popping out of sockets, knee caps getting crushed by sledgehammers, and nude chicks getting stabbed in the shower so many times that it isn't funny or sexy anymore. Doomsday, however, is marketed as something with more action and kickass violence. Instead, it just pulls through with so much unnecessary blood and so many brutalized bodies that it gets annoying and boring. Where are the cool fight scenes? Where are the awesome weapons that nuke the ugly bad guys? Where's the logic for Pete's sake? I guess in an effort to create a cult-following director Neil Marshall gave his film an overdose of needless puke-inducing scenes which eventually killed the movie overall.

Does the film has any good sides? I like Rhona Mitra, that's one good thing. I like the concept behind the film and the basic idea of it. And I like the consistency of grittiness. But take note, none of these simple positive pointers will save any part of the film. The acting is mediocre and the soundtrack isn't anything beyond the ordinary. Rhona Mitra tries to pull off the 'Selena (Underworld)' look too much that it eventually becomes embarrassingly obvious.

Leave it to me and I'd say you're better off not watching Doomsday. But since that's just my take on things, you know how to watch it without having to waste any money. To me, it isn't worth the time and it doesn't live up to expectations if there actually were any in the first place. Doomsday could've been something big, something special, but it ends up being a montage of uselessly bloodbath-ish scenes that seriously get on your nerves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : Doomsday gets a 1.0 out of 5.0. Why not lower? Because despite all its flaws it had (like I said) a concept to it and hey, at least Rhona Mitra tried. Miss this and you are missing absolutely nothing, people.

Why So Serious?

I know, I know...I haven't posted anything new for a really long time now, and it's not because I don't want to. There's a whole pile of movies that I wanna' review and talk about. But sadly, something got in the way.

I've had these weird symptoms lately and decided to see a doctor about it. The man couldn't help me, said he hadn't seen anything of the sort. He referred me to a psychiatrist and that's where the news broke. The big news.

Yes, folks...it's true. I have been diagnosed with a severe case of Battinuous Obsessiculos. In simpler terms it means I'm suffering from 'Severe Dark Knight Obsession'. *weep weep*. Sorry. It's all a bit too emotional. I've been unable to update the blog ever since, but no worries, I will find a way to review flicks once again. I will triumph! Soon. The doc also told me that I'm not the first to be diagnosed. There's been a massive, worldwide outbreak ever since July 18 2008. That date rings a bell for some reason. Symptoms include [1] searching for Batman 3 related news once every 2 hours [2] talking about TDK at least a dozen times during the day, probably half a dozen times in my sleep [3] not getting hyped about Wolverine despite the leaked footage being coated in coolness [4] awaiting The Watchmen, but awaiting the Dark Knight DVD even more [5] Unable to stop watching TDK in theaters even though other potentially nice movies are being screened.

A vaccine hasn't been found yet, but they say the symptoms may ware off within a couple of months. It will surface once again when the third Batman comes out, though. *Sigh* Oh well, that's life for ya'. Gotta' just take it like a man. Unless you're a girl. Then...you'll just take it like a girl...I guess.

P.S : The Dark Knight is being re-released in January 2009, just in time for Oscar nomination season. Warner just wants people to remember TDK when voting. Yeah 'cause, it's such a small movie that people could easily forget, right? Plus, they're looking to make a lil' more cash outta' it. Poor fellas. All that effort put into a movie and what did they get back? A measly $500million in the United States alone. $920million worldwide. That ain't nothin', right? Peanuts. Hopefully more people will give this relatively-unknown movie a chance and hopefully TDK makes more money...since Nolan's practically homeless now. Poor guy.

The Brown Bunny (2003) | REVIEW

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

One Missed Call (2008) | REVIEW

Okay before I review this piece I'm gonna' go out and say that I'm not a huge fan of the horror-genre. I'm the picky type that enjoys a certain type of horror upon the various others. I like thrillers mostly. But every once in a while I like to indulge in a pure, bloody, horror-fest just to see what scariness in Hollywood means these days; just to update myself on how far a director can take his horrific visons and to what lengths he's willing to go to frighten the daylights outta' the audience. Apparently directors don't try very much these days as I was incredibly disappointed by what One Missed Call had to offer a couple of rainy nights ago. I had the perfect setting for a horror flick; midnight, no lights, rain outside, a bag of chips, and brother and a cousin. I did my part, but I guess whoever made One Missed Call forgot to bring the horror along, so we were left there like a bunch of idiots yawning and droopy-eyed, waiting for the flick to come to an end.

This Movie Is About...
_____________________________________
One Missed Call is the 2008 American remake of the Japanese film Chakushin Ari. Elizabeth Raymond (Shannyn Sossamon) is terrified by the deaths of four friends, three of which she personally witnessed, after they received chilling phone calls apparently from themselves in the future, showing the exact time of their deaths. After every death, a small red candy is found in the victim's mouth. Beth reports these strange occurrences to the police; however, they think she is delirious. Detective Jack Andrews (Edward Burns), however, believes her, stating that his sister died in a similar way. Together, they begin to unravel the mystery of the chain of calls, but are unsure if they can figure it out before Beth's phone starts to ring the same eerie tune.
_____________________________________

I admit, getting eerie voice messages that tell you the exact time of your impending doom is freaky. The basis for this story is somewhat acceptable. It would have made for a good film. I haven't watched the Japanese version but I can boldly state that it would have been way better than the American remake. Hollywood should just stop with these damn Japanese remakes and conjure their own horror. Hey, SAW worked fine and is still spawning sequels, Hostel seems to be doing great with its fans, and although I'm not a fan of either series, I'm certain they do a better job at scaring people than One Missed Call did. Let me start dissecting this flick piece by piece just so that I can tell you how bad it really is. Before that, a little bit about the movie's tagline...

One of the taglines for One Missed Call is 'When the call goes straight to voicemail, your world goes straight to hell.'

Seriously? I mean c'mon ...I've seen horrible taglines but this just kicks them all in the crotch! I'm still not sure if whoever the f*ck wrote this sh*t down meant for it to be a joke or really thought it was an intelligent tagline. It looks like something Ben Stiller would use for a nutty comedy movie which would eventually tank at the box-office. Get someone with an imagination to write a tagline next time! A tagline is a vital marketing asset, it's what people remember when they look at a poster, and it's supposed to create an interest inside their heads. Imagine if the tagline for Superman Returns read "When Superman flies, you can feel the wind blow in your face." People wouldn't watch a movie that said that...heck they'd hate the movie even before watching it if it had a tagline of that sort. See what I mean? What kind of a douchebag wrote that tagline down? Sheesh....

On to the acting. Being brutally frank, I haven't seen more straight-faced people ever in one movie. The actors in One Missed Call are intensely lame. Elizabeth is the name of the main character and she sees her friends die after receiving eerie messages of themselves on their cellphones. Watch the flick and you'll see that she shows no signs of trauma, sadness, or restlessness whatsoever. It's annoying to see someone behave so f*ckin' stiff when in reality they'd be suffering from intense hysteria! And it's not only her, by the way. The entire boatload of actors in this project are so bad at acting that you get the notion that they'd rather be someplace else. You get the feeling of detachment from the movie which causes you to not give a damn about the characters. Imagine if you hated every single character in a movie. Would you give a crap if they died? Nope. The same applies here. The story is mediocre, the horror is cheap, and the execution of the entire film is very amateurish.

With all that being said, there are but a few scary instances in One Missed Call. They're not worth watching the movie for, but they deliver a fright or two. Which brings me to the part of 'cheap horror'. It has become a popular trend these days for directors to just use hideous faces and ghoulish figures to inject fear into people and frighten them a little during a movie. They use CGI to tweak with movements of characters and the way their body suddenly juts or shudders when they walk, giving them an abnormal strut that makes them look scary or chilling. It does the job, but it's the equivalent of taking the easy way out. It's simple to get an audience to shut their eyes at the sight of a moving corpse, or bite their fingernails when a hideous creature leaps towards the hero. It's relatively easy to create a cliffhanger ending just so the audience could chatter about it after leaving the theater hall. People fail to realize that horror, like every other film genre, is an artform. It has a science to it, and an art even. It needs to be taken seriously in order for it to be wholesome, as grisly as that sounds. People like Wes Craven and Alfred Hitchcock understood that art and delivered stunning horror masterpieces that remain as benchmarks today. One Missed Call will be forgotten as soon as the next day, or after a week at most. Horror flicks seem to be the target of unknown directors eager to break into the business because it's easy to scare an audience. It's movies like these that have damaged the genre and have taken a large number of people away from it.

The only good thing about One Missed Call is its poster. That creepy poster alone gives me more chills than the entire movie. Oh, and just so you know, One Missed Call wasn't screened for critics and the press beforehand. I guess even the studios knew that this movie was gonna' bomb big at the box-office!

There's nothing much to say about One Missed Call other than it's a waste of time and money. It scares you using creepy-looking things and hideous faces, but there's nothing much to use your brain for during the movie. The story is slow, mostly boring, while the acting doesn't help the film's already suffering existence one bit. Other than one or two genuine frights and bumps, this movie is passable as a flick that does not have to be seen by anyone who knows what a good movie is. There's a whole island of good horror films out there to choose from, and unfortunately for One Missed Call, it forgot to get off the boat on that island. It's just sailing off to Boringland. Don't bother about this flick. It isn't worth your time.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wrap : One Missed Call gets a 0.2 out of 5.0 for the rare scares that it has in offer and for at least having an eerie-looking poster!

Batman 3 Fan Art....Amazing Stuff!

Okay a very quick update and I'm off to finish my stuff again. I just had to post this. This person on devianArt has been illustrating posters for quite some time and ever since he put up his latest works of art that unofficially relate to the inevitable third Batman flick, sites like JoBlo and Slashfilm have picked up his work and in return have sent him shiploads of traffic. Sure, there are some flaws here and there but this dude's got some serious talent! I practically work on Photoshop every day and yet have not a clue on how he conjured-up these posters! Effin' realistic stuff. The third Batman film is supposedly called 'Gotham City'...which in my opinion would blow because it reminds me of that retarded R.Kelly song from the Batman & Robin (*ugh*) soundtrack. Don't remember that one? Let me torture your senses a bit. Here are the lyrics : "City of justice *yeah*, city of love. City of peace, for every one of us...'cause we all need it *uh* can't live without it...Gotham City, *oh yeah*."

City of justice, love, AND peace? Is he singing about a different Gotham City? That corny sonoffab*tch.

Anyway, click HERE to see a lot more of his work including posters featuring The Riddler, some Wonder Woman art, and even 'The Dark Knightress'(?). Oh, and there's this one shot with Batman and Catwoman together which looks completely awesome! Oh...I do disagree on The Riddler casting though. In Nolan's world, nobody looks that simple or that true to the comics. Call me cliche', but Johnny Depp would be my pick for a Riddler. The man would totally own the role. Plus, should a third installment happen, you need someone who can make a villain top The Joker...and we all know that's gonna' be harder than getting to the top of Mt.Everest. Enjoy the artwork. Click HERE to see the rest.

PS : I always envisioned a Harley Quinn in Nolan's Gotham, and in all honesty, I've always wanted her to look as creepy as she does in the poster above. A guy with a slashed-up face and clown makeup is one thing...but the eerieness of a girl with the same features can send shivers down your spine! Creeeepy...

"F*ck DC Comics", says Rob Downey Jr.

I'm not sure how to interpret this lil' snippet from an interview Robert Downey Jr. (RDJ) did with Moviehole, because all of it seems pretty genuine and down-to-earth until he explodes at the end bit. Here's what I'm talkin' about:

It's a well-known fact that RDJ's brain-to-mouth filter is sometimes turned off and he says things that downright offends people. If he doesn't like something, he'll just say it to one's face without having to kiss any ass. It's cool to know that people like RDJ are in the biz and still maintain their policies. It's cool. But is it still cool when you say something likewise about a certain small movie called The Dark Knight and DC Comics in general? Here's the snippet.

"My whole thing is that that I saw 'The Dark Knight'. I feel like I'm dumb because I feel like I don't get how many things that are so smart. It's like a Ferrari engine of storytelling and script writing and I'm like, 'That's not my idea of what I want to see in a movie.' I loved 'The Prestige' but didn't understand 'The Dark Knight'. Didn't get it, still can't tell you what happened in the movie, what happened to the character and in the end they need him to be a bad guy. I'm like, 'I get it. This is so high brow and so f--king smart, I clearly need a college education to understand this movie.' You know what? F-ck DC comics. That's all I have to say and that's where I'm really coming from."

Ooof, talk about sharp words! As much as I love The Dark Knight, I'm not gonna' jump to conclusions and say that RDJ is a jerk and whatnot. He's obviously not into that sorta' storytelling and that's fine. But "F*ck DC Comics"? Looks like Robbie won't be working for those guys anytime soon. It's not like he cares anyway...there's like what, five more Iron Man movies to go? What I'm coming to is that, you don't play a comic character and then say 'F*ck DC". No, that's wrong in more ways than one because like it or not, DC pioneered the superhero concept. Superman, anyone? Yeah, I hate the boyscout in blue, too, but it's well-known that had it not been for the perfect nature of Superman, imperfect superheroes wouldn't have been conjured from Marvel's side of things. And Iron Man is one of the most imperfect of them all; a multi-billionaire alcoholic playboy. Heck, he's Marvel's version of Batman for cryin' out loud! So to say "F*ck DC" would be like not giving a sh*t about where your now pop-culture-icon status character comes from.

And just to rub it in, Rob Downey may have lost some merit points among the fanboy nation for his comments. There were tons of friggin' death threats sent to the inbox of a reviewer who accused Chris Nolan of being a 'con artiste' more than a director. The Dark Knight has become so monumental that saying anything negative about it is like using racial slur in public! Heck, it's so huge that I will hereon refer to The Dark Knight only as 'The Greatness'. The Dark Kni**cough** I mean 'The Greatness' is so cool that it may very well be the second, if not highest, domestic grossing film of all time.

In other related news, The Greatness is now being researched as an effective alternative cure to many of Earth's incurable diseases. We may very well be on the verge of a universal vaccine. Fans of the film have been quoted saying that they feel immensely happy and only now realize that God truly loves them. Speaking of God, it has been said that The Greatness is in fact, a gift from up above to us humans for finally taking the effort to take care of nature. A group of people saw God form from clouds ala Mufassa in The Lion King, He smiled, winked at them and gave them the thumbs-up, eventually saying "You deserve it, fellas...here are your free passes for the IMAX screening." Oh, watching it also gives you a sure-shot seat in Heaven.

...What was this post about again? I vaguely remember something about Robert Downey Jr...hmm....