A Plea for the upcoming Hobbit film

One of the rumors flying around is that the upcoming Hobbit film, the prequel to the Lord of the Rings, will be broken up into two separate films, with one film being based on the book of the same name, and the other being a "bridging" film - which fills in the years between the events of The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings.

My biggest fear is that a "bridging" film would be uninteresting to anyone not fully absorbed into the franchise, as the time between the stories is relatively quiet. What we could be left with is a 2+ hour film that is nothing more than a glorified mish-mash of different sequences that will eventually lead into Lord of the Rings. Highly entertaining to a die-hard, but I just don't see a cohesive story coming out of it - unless they make up a great deal. That is, not that I'd put it past Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh, and Philippa Boyens based on what they did to the source material in Return of the King.

I personally hope they just expand on ancillary plots that happened concurrently with The Hobbit. By adding an extended prologue and an entire "new" subplot involving the White Council meeting (mentioned in other material but is not show in the book), then later show the attack on Dol Guldur (in the south of Mirkwood, one of the rallying places for Sauron's forces). If they don't butcher the material, they could easily fill the film out into two 2 hour and 30 minute films for the theater. There would be no need for "compression" by excising any major sequences. If the pacing is off - then perhaps one film is a better move with some minor trimming.

If they want to do another film ($$$$$), I'd suggest that they attempt to secure the film rights to The Silmarillion (and other "lost" works) and do a theatrical film of Akallabêth. A great deal of information is available already, and the audience is familiar with some of the story - the end of a film version of Akallabêth (or two if they can legitimately expand on the material) could be the Last Alliance of Elves and Men defeating Sauron. This would fit right in with the prologue in Lord of the Rings.

After that point they'd have gone "far enough" back that introducing completely different characters would not be a problem (Beren and Lúthien, and The Children of Húrin), and an entire array of stories could be told in the theater if anyone has the stamina to actually take on any of those projects.

Until then, I remain hopeful that there is no "bridging" tale, because if the choice is a "bridging film" or no followup film, I'd rather there not be one.

Heroes Season One Retrospective

While working through my backlog of DVDs, a backlog that never seems to disappear, I finally got around to watching my Heroes Season One HD DVD (yes, HD DVD) box set. I purchased it a year ago and finally got around to watching it.

Well, considering that most of the people I know who still are watching Heroes is either out of habit or obligation, it's no surprise that I find a different show when I began to re-watch the first season. I'm struck by how solid the writing is. Few shows have such a solid story laid out, a plot that's actually well executed.

Heroes is an interesting look into a world where "super heroes" actually exist. This is different than the world that Watchmen is set in, where there was "one" super hero – and everyone else was a masked vigilante. No, this universe is one where normal people begin to develop extra-human abilities that manifest themselves in seemingly random people across the world.

Some are heroes, some are villains. The main story arc of this season is simply "Save the Cheerleader, Save the World." The story revolves around the Petrelli Brothers, Peter – a nurse, and Nathan – a candidate for Congress; Claire, a teenager from Texas; Matt Parkman, a Californian cop; Mohinder Suresh, a doctor from India; and Niki, a resident of Las Vegas. The main villain of the series is Sylar, a serial killer out to kill as many "special" humans as possible.

It’s a wonder where it all went wrong (expect reviews of subsequent seasons expanding on that statement). My earlier review of this season back in May 2007 covers some of the weaker points of the season, many of which I am able to overlook now. How time changes.

**** out of *****

New Riddick movie in the works?

Looks like there may be some more stories to tell about Richard B. Riddick in the near future. As IESB reports:

...the new Riddick film will be more down and dirty with less "fantasy epic stuff" to deal with. A bounty hunter/space pirate type of story line is expected.

The film will have a capped budget of around $35 million.

Probably a good move, since the last film cost $105 million and earned roughly $57 million based on Box Office Mojo's figures.

I know there isn't a lot of love for Chronicles of Riddick, but there's a special place in my heart for that film.

Tales of the Black Freighter + Under the Hood

I just picked up copy of the Blu-Ray and I have to say I was quite impressed.

The original graphic novel of Watchmen features a story-within-a-story called Tales of the Black Freighter. The story is originally intertwined with scenes of a character reading the comic book, within the Watchmen universe in multiple chapters in the story. Due to super heroes being "real" there's no interest in super hero comic books – pirate stories apparently have taken their place.

The story presented in Tales of the Black Freighter is a story of a young seaman who attempts to return home to warn his town of the coming of the Black Freighter. His ship is destroyed and he is marooned on an island. To escape he must use means that slowly drive him more and more mad. His madness ends up being his undoing. The film ends with the song "Pirate Jenny", from "The Threepenny Opera." Gerard Butler voices the main character of the story, "Tales of the Black Freighter."


Under the Hood was a wonderful compilation of the appendix material found in the graphic novel. It takes material not only from Hollis Mason's Under the Hood excerpts, but also some of the other interview material as well. It's all presented in a well-presented mockumentary fashion.

I was quite impressed by the wealth of visual material on display, from interviews, to faux archival footage, black-and-white photos, and newspaper headlines. The short film really dug deeper into the history and universe created and only hinted at in the Watchmen film. The short film features the characters of Hollis Mason (who wrote the book Under the Hood), Sally Jupiter, Wally Weaver, Sally’s ex-husband, The Comedian, former villain Moloch, and others.

This ends up providing the same basic aid to the story that the excerpts provided in the graphic novel helped expand the Watchmen universe. In many respects I would almost suggest this to someone who has not read the graphic novel, as they would be introduced to the world, some of the characters, and have a sense of history to go with it. The downside is that it may only be interesting to someone who already is familiar with these characters, as it plays the documentary angle extremely straight. In other words, people may find it "boring" since they’re not invested in the characters and history already.

I’m hoping that much of this footage somehow makes its way into a future extended release, or at the very least is provided as a recommended companion piece when the ultimate edition comes out.

While I did not expect a lot from Under the Hood, I ended up being more impressed with the short film than I did with Tales of the Black Freighter. Both were good, and something that should be looked into if you enjoyed Watchmen.

Black Freighter - *** out of *****
Under the Hood - *** 1/2 out of *****

Wait... when the heck did this happen?

Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day.

When did this happen?

Just about since the first film was released and became a hit on DVD, the film has had an IMDb board. Whether it is the same board or if it has continued to be resurrected, I'm not sure. Every few years I'd find myself there, looking at an entry for a film that was rumored to start production, but that never seemed to be able to find the financing, or there just wasn't any clear interest in making the film, or some other unforeseen issue befell the start of production. At many points people said that Troy Duffy would never work in the industry again. I thought it was dead. Now, I find myself here, and am surprised to see that not only is it being made, but that they're finishing up post-production. Very interesting!

I'm hopeful that the film is at least as half as entertaining as the first film.

Boondock Saints

This was one of my favorite films while in college. I hadn’t seen it for a few years, and while I don’t believe it holds up as well as I expected it would, I still enjoy the film quite a lot. Then again, I think this may be one of those films that is required viewing and required to be liked while in college. It’s some unwritten rule.

The film, a financial disaster, became a huge hit when it hit shelves on DVD.

The premise of the movie is that two Irish Catholic brothers in South Boston (Sean Patrick Flanery and Norman Reedus), in lack of a better way to put it, are sent on a mission from God to punish the "unjust." Much debate has been raised as to whether or not this is actually so, or if they’ve just decided to take matters entirely into their own hands and enact their own brand of "justice" on those who they deem fit for punishment.

Willem Dafoe plays a brilliant FBI agent who is sent in to investigate a string of slayings that are occurring in the Russian mafia. As the bodies pile up, the FBI moves closer and closer in on the brothers, but one thing is certain, the people who are turning up dead – deserve it, and they know it.

David Della Rocco, Billy Connolly, Carlo Rota, and Ron Jeremy also star.

The film is full of stereotypes and clichés. Yes. But for my enjoyment, I don’t think that any of that is a detriment to the film – it gives the movie some character. The story is relatively bare-bones, quirky, and violent.

*** out of *****

One of my cousins will not like this news

I've just read that Stephen King's "It" may re-make it to theaters.

"It" is novel is set in the fictional town of Derry, Maine, where a malevolent, shape-shifting, child-killing entity (referred to simply as "It") lurks in the sewers and storm-drains.

We'll see how it pans out.

Under Siege

Under Siege, one in a number of films dealing with terrorists have taken over some location and one man, usually on the inside, is the only person who can successfully defeat them.

The film stars Steven Segal, as the man in question who is “enlisted” to “save the day.” He stars as Casey Ryback, an ex-Navy Seal who is now the cook on the U.S.S. Missouri. The ship is overrun by terrorists, led by Tommy Lee Jones, who easily takes over the ship, like any good Hollywood film does.

Segal, who plays the same character in just about every single film he stars in, is just about as good an actor as you can imagine in the role. The supporting cast, which hams up the screen, and enjoys every minute of it, as seen by Jones and other supporting cast such as Gary Busey.

This, out of his entire portfolio, is probably Segal's best film. It's certainly entertaining if you're not expecting Shakespeare.

** 1/2 out of *****

People confused over two simple words

Effective July 7th 2009 the channel will be renamed and rebranded as "SyFy."

I thought it was a joke. It's not: "Sci Fi Channel Has a New Name: Now, It’s Syfy"

"We couldn't own Sci Fi; it’s a genre," said Bonnie Hammer, the former president of Sci Fi who became the president of NBC Universal Cable Entertainment and Universal Cable Productions. "But we can own Syfy."

I haven't really been able to pin down what "SyFy" is, but I think it has something to do with wrestling, "ghost hunting" shows (9 minutes of commercials with 21 minutes of nothing happening), and Law & Order: Special Victims Unit reruns.

They appear to honestly think that "SyFy" will convince more people to watch the network.

The complete destruction of the network is complete.

Malin Akerman Tour?

Watchmen Tour with Malin Akerman from Malin Akerman

Scarlett Johansson cast in Iron Man 2!

More news on the Iron Man 2 front.

Scarlett Johansson has been cast in the upcoming sequel to Iron Man as the character Black Widow. She will join the cast which includes Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper Potts, Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury and Don Cheadle as the recasted Col. James "Rhodey" Rhodes.

Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler, Sin City), has been cast as the movie's villian.

The film is scheduled for a May 2010 release. The Avengers will be released in 2012. Fellow Avenger Thor, will be making his film debut in 2011. Spiderman 4 will be released along with Iron Man's sequel in 2010.

Watchmen

Well, I've just returned from the 12:01 IMAX showing in Alexandria. The night started off pretty good, first with two co-workers of mine, Lance and Jeremy, headed over to Rustico, a wonderful restaurant/bar that serves an excellent array of beers. The downside was, however, that when we eventually arrived at the movie theater, there were no three adjacent seats - except in the first row. Well Jeremy would have none of that, so he found a pretty comfy seat about mid-way up the middle section. I settled in in the second row, and Lance had to settle for a close seat when no other free seats were available higher up in the theater.

The movie's trailers started and we were provided the months old Star Trek trailer, a trailer for Night at the Museum 2 and Transformers 2.

Well, coming from someone who had already seen the work - I was impressed. My two co-workers had seen the film already as well, and appeared to be as well. I really can't say how I'd find this film if I had not read the work to begin with. I'll just have to see if I can wrangle up anyone else who may want to see the film, and see how a person who has not read the graphic novel reacts.

The acting from the principle cast is great. They nail the characters perfectly.
Jeffrey Dean Morgan did an excellent job, Billy Crudup, and Jackie Earle Haley. Haley nails Rorschach.

The attention to detail, not only for what appeared in the graphic novel, but what technology existed in 1985 (though slightly tweaked due to certain changes from our history), is dead on.

I'd have to say so far the only part that I'm slightly frustrated with is the rushing towards the resolution that occurs in the film. It just "happens" - not horribly, but far faster than other elements in the story progress. Then again, I'm not hating the "changes" made to the ending. The huge fear was that the film would be unable to cope with such a "drastic" change to the original story, that the film would fall apart. Personally, with other parts completely removed, the shift in the plot-'twist' suits the film's needs as a self contained story and not just an arm of the graphic novel.

Aside from the obvious major change for those familiar with the story, the film is extremely faithful to the source material. Some parts have been excised, but will apparently be added back into the film when it makes its way onto DVD.

They didn't change the gender of any of the characters. They didn't add in completely new characters. They didn't eliminate any of the main plot points (just the means in one particular case). They didn't have some characters live and others die instead. They didn't cut out entire swaths of the film to fit a specific run time. If less competent people had been running the show, it would have been worse. They would have eliminated Rorschach's entire incarceration, they probably would have killed other characters. They would have made it an actual "happy ending." Trust me, it could have been far worse. And the film is still being skewered.

I loved the original ending. However, upon exiting the theater, I heard more than a few people discuss whether or not what Veidt did was right. As I've heard another person say about the matter... Mission Accomplished. The ending still works.

What I'm finding hilarious is that almost no two critics that are being critical of the film can agree. Just based off the first two short synopses I can across on Rotten Tomatoes, one calls the film "overlong" the next says that the film is too short. You have reviewers that show a complete lack of focus, and are ignorant when they eventually write the review, calling characters the wrong thing, analyzing things that didn't even appear in the movie (perhaps they were complaining about something they saw in a trailer before the film). You also have reviewers that complain that the film is not an accurate adaptation of the source material. Few films are. Sin City perhaps is the most "faithful" adaption in the last few years. Watchmen is more faithful to not only the plot, but the characters than Peter Jackson and crew were to the story and characters in Lord of the Rings. Few film adaptions in the last 100 years are even halfway faithful to the original works.

Then again, some of the people who are unable to get past the graphic novel are also the same people who don't want the graphic novel to become "popular" - either because they're unable to make emotional bonds with well known works of literature or art, or because they like to be ironic and complain about how not enough people "know" about something and that popularizing such a thing would ruin their complaining.

I generally agree that the consensus of critics on a given movie is usually the correct one, but not in this case. The critics either don't get it, or are so far absorbed into the graphic novel that they just will not accept anything that is missing or is deviating from the plot.

I can't really say if this film will be a hit - since almost all IMAX showings such as the one I just was at are sold out, even if the film ends up coming in at #8 for the weekend. However, the audience, not the critics will end up being the determining factor in whether people look on the film favorably, or unfavorably whether it be one week, one month, or years from now.

It was a great night, with a film that did not disappoint like my last foray into the 12:01 Friday morning premiere - Indiana Jones.

Tales of the Black Freighter Trailer

This is going to be interesting to see as well.

I'm more stoked to see this get integrated into the actual Watchmen film, and see how exactly it all plays out, as one, huge epic 3+ hour film. This is of course, assuming that Watchmen will be good. I don't go in assuming that it won't somehow be a complete failure, but if it does not deliver, it may end up being the biggest disappointments I have ever had with a film in recent memory. Less than 23 and a half hours to go...

Only 24 Hours

In just under 24 hours I will be sitting in an IMAX theater sitting down to Watchmen with my co-workers Lance and Jeremy.

It is going to be SWEET.

Gunslinger "Jonah Hex" coming to the cinemas

Based on what I've read from the article, Megan Fox lines up comic-book movies, it appears that DC and Warner Bros are making a "Jonah Hex" film.

Jonah Hex is a Western comic book anti-hero, comparable to Clint Eastwood's many western characters.

John Malkovich will play Quentin Turnbull, making him the most likely candidate for the main adversary of the film.

Somehow I still don't really know who the heck this Megan Fox person is.