Friday, November 30, 2007
Weekend Warning
It is a slow weekend for opening movies, as anything worth seeing already had it's release date bumped up for Thanksgiving weekend or was pushed back to capitalize on the Christmas crowd. Nonetheless, we play our weekly game of guessing the over/under for the weekend box office numbers...you can play along in the comments.
Awake ($7.0 million) - There are no reviews out for Awake at the time of writing this. Just remember my prediction...at some point, a reviewer will play the whole "Awake definitely put me to sleep" card.
Troy: It appears operating tables are the new place to discuss evil plans. (UNDER)
Torch: After this movie, it seems like the smart thing to do is to not be put under when undergoing a major surgery. Just suck it up... (UNDER)
Teeth (N/A) - Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), Awake is the only widely released movie coming out this weekend. There are a host of limited-release/artsy/crap movies coming out as well, most of which I don't care about. However, it's difficult to ignore the synopsis for Teeth: "High school student Dawn works hard at suppressing her budding sexuality by being the local chastity group's most active participant. Her task is made even more difficult by her bad boy stepbrother Brad's increasingly provocative behavior at home. A stranger to her own body, innocent Dawn discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence."
Did I mention that this is not a comedy either?
Troy: Speechless. I'm lightyears away from being mature enough for this thing.
Torch: Is this something you have to disclose before you start dating someone, or can I-- I mean they keep it secret until the other person just finds out????
About last week: Okay, so I went 0-4...but it's just as hard to go 0-4 in over/under as it is 4-0, right?
Enchanted squeaked out over the $34.0 million, getting $34.4 million. I needed some bad luck to go 0-4, and this was the first bit of it.
Hitman got $13.2 million, destroying the $9.8 million mark, and I think I was right to assume it was a poor movie by the lack of the reviews. It now has a whopping 11% (!!!!) on Rotten Tomatoes, but people still shelled out the dough for this travesty. (*Simpson Quote Alert*) I hate the public so much! If only they'd elect me, I'd make 'em pay!
August Rush raked in $9.4 million, well above the $7.3 million line. What I don't get is this - who is seeing this movie that isn't seeing Enchanted instead?! It's the same crowd! They can't all just be left-overs from sold out Enchanted theaters, right? This one pissed me off the most.
The Mist, of course, hit the under ($8.9 mil of $11.0 mil) . I'm not surprised by this...I actually thought all the movies would hit the under, but guessed the Mist to go over for a myriad of reasons, apparently none of them sound.
Troy (2-5)
Torch (6-1)
Awake ($7.0 million) - There are no reviews out for Awake at the time of writing this. Just remember my prediction...at some point, a reviewer will play the whole "Awake definitely put me to sleep" card.Troy: It appears operating tables are the new place to discuss evil plans. (UNDER)
Torch: After this movie, it seems like the smart thing to do is to not be put under when undergoing a major surgery. Just suck it up... (UNDER)
Teeth (N/A) - Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), Awake is the only widely released movie coming out this weekend. There are a host of limited-release/artsy/crap movies coming out as well, most of which I don't care about. However, it's difficult to ignore the synopsis for Teeth: "High school student Dawn works hard at suppressing her budding sexuality by being the local chastity group's most active participant. Her task is made even more difficult by her bad boy stepbrother Brad's increasingly provocative behavior at home. A stranger to her own body, innocent Dawn discovers she has a toothed vagina when she becomes the object of violence."
Did I mention that this is not a comedy either?
Troy: Speechless. I'm lightyears away from being mature enough for this thing.
Torch: Is this something you have to disclose before you start dating someone, or can I-- I mean they keep it secret until the other person just finds out????
About last week: Okay, so I went 0-4...but it's just as hard to go 0-4 in over/under as it is 4-0, right?
Enchanted squeaked out over the $34.0 million, getting $34.4 million. I needed some bad luck to go 0-4, and this was the first bit of it.
Hitman got $13.2 million, destroying the $9.8 million mark, and I think I was right to assume it was a poor movie by the lack of the reviews. It now has a whopping 11% (!!!!) on Rotten Tomatoes, but people still shelled out the dough for this travesty. (*Simpson Quote Alert*) I hate the public so much! If only they'd elect me, I'd make 'em pay!
August Rush raked in $9.4 million, well above the $7.3 million line. What I don't get is this - who is seeing this movie that isn't seeing Enchanted instead?! It's the same crowd! They can't all just be left-overs from sold out Enchanted theaters, right? This one pissed me off the most.
The Mist, of course, hit the under ($8.9 mil of $11.0 mil) . I'm not surprised by this...I actually thought all the movies would hit the under, but guessed the Mist to go over for a myriad of reasons, apparently none of them sound.
Troy (2-5)
Torch (6-1)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Grace is Gone
Trailer (Opens 12/7)
I have decided that we don't give away enough free stuff on this site. So here is a trivia question. The winner will take home one free hour of private drum lessons (by me) on Rockband.
What was the last decent movie that John Cusack was in?
A.) Martian Child
B.) Must Love Dogs
C.) Runaway Jury
D.) The Ice Harvest
And the answer is FALSE.... None of these movies are good... The reason why you haven't seen a good movie with John Cusack is because you were probably like 14 when his last good (possibly great) one came out. Yup, I was 14 when High Fidelity came out, which meant I could not go out and see it in the theaters. This left me to believe that John Cusack's best movie was Serendipity until I was in college and was taught differently by my dorm mate. He also showed me this HORRIBLE movie with heroin, speed, gameshows, dildos and other weird stuff. More like Requiem for a NIGHTMARE....
No good movies since 2000! Johny, you need a new agent. Call Me! Use a phone... Don't come to my house with a boombox... thanks...
It's ok though... The great thing about Hollywood is that you can make one good movie and then make boring sappy romantic comedies for 8+ years. Cusack is due for a good movie. I can feel it. Sadly, this is NOT that movie. It looks so promising too, but come along with me and I will show you why the only good thing about this movie for Cusack is that it is in limited release, and only pretentious people will go see it...
Title- Grace is Gone. Hmm.. I like the alliteration. I feel it could have been stronger with a little bit more. Possibly "Grace Gets Gone", or "Grumpy Grace is Gone."
I also wish that the title gave up a little less of the movie. No one likes a girl that gives it up on the first date (wait... nevermind). Grace is gone leaves no room for my mind to turn. Now, with a title like "Grace Might Be Gone", I am intrigued. I want to know, "Is she gone? Why is she gone? What are the consequences of her being gone?" I feel like this title traps my imagination.
Synopsis- Let me break this movie down for you very quickly.
Soldier( John Cusack) can't fight in the war because of bad eyesight. They turn people down because of eyesight? Do you even have to be literate to be in the army?
Soldier's wife (Grace) is still in the war as a Sergeant. They won't let a man with bad vision fight, but they let a WOMAN fight? Isn't that the biggest handicap of all?
Man struggles at home to raise 2 daughters. Um.... okay....
Wife Dies. This doesn't come as a shock if you read the title
Man does not tell his daughters that their mother is dead. Great... The audience has known the wife is dead since they bought their movie ticket, and you aren't even going to tell your daughters?
Man takes kids on road trip. Huh? Did I walk into a Tom Green, or possibly even worse, Ice Cube movie?
Man takes children to the place they want to go the most. Oh, I get it. He wants to get them to a really happy high point in life so that when he hits them with the bad news their emotional drop won't be as bad... wait... nevermind... He is an idiot.
Man bonds with daughters. Yup, cause it is easy to bond with your daughters once you know that your wife is dead. It puts you in a mood that any daughter is sure to love.
Man tells daughters their mother is dead. I am not sure about this part, but he has to right? He can't not tell them. They respond calmly, "Dad, it is ok. This whole road trip bonding thing really prepared us for the most traumatic information we could possibly receive in life. Thanks for softening the blow."
The End
Conclusion- The only thing more dead than Grace is John Cusack's career.....
I have decided that we don't give away enough free stuff on this site. So here is a trivia question. The winner will take home one free hour of private drum lessons (by me) on Rockband.
What was the last decent movie that John Cusack was in?
A.) Martian Child
B.) Must Love Dogs
C.) Runaway Jury
D.) The Ice Harvest
And the answer is FALSE.... None of these movies are good... The reason why you haven't seen a good movie with John Cusack is because you were probably like 14 when his last good (possibly great) one came out. Yup, I was 14 when High Fidelity came out, which meant I could not go out and see it in the theaters. This left me to believe that John Cusack's best movie was Serendipity until I was in college and was taught differently by my dorm mate. He also showed me this HORRIBLE movie with heroin, speed, gameshows, dildos and other weird stuff. More like Requiem for a NIGHTMARE....
No good movies since 2000! Johny, you need a new agent. Call Me! Use a phone... Don't come to my house with a boombox... thanks...
It's ok though... The great thing about Hollywood is that you can make one good movie and then make boring sappy romantic comedies for 8+ years. Cusack is due for a good movie. I can feel it. Sadly, this is NOT that movie. It looks so promising too, but come along with me and I will show you why the only good thing about this movie for Cusack is that it is in limited release, and only pretentious people will go see it...
Title- Grace is Gone. Hmm.. I like the alliteration. I feel it could have been stronger with a little bit more. Possibly "Grace Gets Gone", or "Grumpy Grace is Gone."
I also wish that the title gave up a little less of the movie. No one likes a girl that gives it up on the first date (wait... nevermind). Grace is gone leaves no room for my mind to turn. Now, with a title like "Grace Might Be Gone", I am intrigued. I want to know, "Is she gone? Why is she gone? What are the consequences of her being gone?" I feel like this title traps my imagination.
Synopsis- Let me break this movie down for you very quickly.
Soldier( John Cusack) can't fight in the war because of bad eyesight. They turn people down because of eyesight? Do you even have to be literate to be in the army?
Soldier's wife (Grace) is still in the war as a Sergeant. They won't let a man with bad vision fight, but they let a WOMAN fight? Isn't that the biggest handicap of all?
Man struggles at home to raise 2 daughters. Um.... okay....Wife Dies. This doesn't come as a shock if you read the title
Man does not tell his daughters that their mother is dead. Great... The audience has known the wife is dead since they bought their movie ticket, and you aren't even going to tell your daughters?
Man takes kids on road trip. Huh? Did I walk into a Tom Green, or possibly even worse, Ice Cube movie?Man takes children to the place they want to go the most. Oh, I get it. He wants to get them to a really happy high point in life so that when he hits them with the bad news their emotional drop won't be as bad... wait... nevermind... He is an idiot.
Man bonds with daughters. Yup, cause it is easy to bond with your daughters once you know that your wife is dead. It puts you in a mood that any daughter is sure to love.
Man tells daughters their mother is dead. I am not sure about this part, but he has to right? He can't not tell them. They respond calmly, "Dad, it is ok. This whole road trip bonding thing really prepared us for the most traumatic information we could possibly receive in life. Thanks for softening the blow."The End
Conclusion- The only thing more dead than Grace is John Cusack's career.....
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Revolver
Trailer (Opens 12/7)
Revolver marks the long-anticipated return of Guy Ritchie. Unfortunately, despite
being a fan of his previous movies, I have my doubts about this one living up to that
standard. Sure, there is some negative buzz, but this isn't necessarily the reason.
And yeah, Madonna has now had seven years to work her Kabbalah on him, but I don't think
it's that either. No, it's the Quentin Tarantino Axiom that has me concerned.
The QTA:
Both Ritchie and Tarantino started out in Hollywood just doing the writing thing, then took some of that money and began making their own movies. Both had their off-beat, darkly humorous multi-plotted first movie become a cult classic (Reservoir Dogs for Tarantino and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels for Ritchie), despite limited funding and distribution.
They kept this odd form of storytelling up for their next movies (Pulp Fiction for Tarantino and Snatch for Ritchie), recycling many of the same actors, and it resulted in a commercial success. People then marked their calender, eagerly awaiting the next arrival.
But really, we know, this is the peak in quality. Look what happened with Tarantino - he started appearing on shows like TRL, and all of the sudden his cult fanbase of smart-ass basement geeks felt betrayed. Quentin was not some misunderstood genius that cut himself to feel something...no, he was just another dude snuggling up with the immensely talentless Carson Daily. He never reached anything near Pulp Fiction again (Kill Bill volumes sucked), and people got sick of his mug.
There is hope for Guy, however, to avoid this trap. For one, his name is “Guy”. Second, despite the age, it has to be SOME mark of coolness that he's tamed Madonna for seven years (I know I already brought this up, but really? You just "happen" to come out with a movie called "Snatch" the same year you marry Madonna?) And finally, I don't think the British are allowed on TRL anyway, unless they've met their quota of heroin consumption (thank you, Amy Winehouse).
Real quickly, I'll note my other concerns for this movie:
1) Jason Stratham, after talking you up in my Hitman post as Hollywood's resident bald badass, you come out with HAIR in this movie? How could you?!
2) Ray Liotta - look, Ray is a great guy and all, but no matter how many credentials show up on movie websites, he is only known for Goodfellas. Despite being all the way back in 1990, if you search for Ray Liotta on IMDB, it will say in parenthesis: "actor, Goodfellas" Check it out...I know you want to. That's just how it is. I don't even say Ray Liotta anymore, I just say "Goodfellas" is starring in this movie. To have him in another gangster movie...it could get confusing.
3) The tagline - "The greatest trick that he ever pulled was making you believe that he is you.". Uh, who? Satan? If it is referencing the Usual Suspect lines, that's what would be implied...
4) Chess – we get it, your plan is complicated. Unless your plan involves something called a “Latvian Gambit” though, please, stop getting so many shots of the chess board.
Revolver marks the long-anticipated return of Guy Ritchie. Unfortunately, despite
being a fan of his previous movies, I have my doubts about this one living up to that
standard. Sure, there is some negative buzz, but this isn't necessarily the reason.
And yeah, Madonna has now had seven years to work her Kabbalah on him, but I don't think
it's that either. No, it's the Quentin Tarantino Axiom that has me concerned.
The QTA:Both Ritchie and Tarantino started out in Hollywood just doing the writing thing, then took some of that money and began making their own movies. Both had their off-beat, darkly humorous multi-plotted first movie become a cult classic (Reservoir Dogs for Tarantino and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels for Ritchie), despite limited funding and distribution.
They kept this odd form of storytelling up for their next movies (Pulp Fiction for Tarantino and Snatch for Ritchie), recycling many of the same actors, and it resulted in a commercial success. People then marked their calender, eagerly awaiting the next arrival.
But really, we know, this is the peak in quality. Look what happened with Tarantino - he started appearing on shows like TRL, and all of the sudden his cult fanbase of smart-ass basement geeks felt betrayed. Quentin was not some misunderstood genius that cut himself to feel something...no, he was just another dude snuggling up with the immensely talentless Carson Daily. He never reached anything near Pulp Fiction again (Kill Bill volumes sucked), and people got sick of his mug.There is hope for Guy, however, to avoid this trap. For one, his name is “Guy”. Second, despite the age, it has to be SOME mark of coolness that he's tamed Madonna for seven years (I know I already brought this up, but really? You just "happen" to come out with a movie called "Snatch" the same year you marry Madonna?) And finally, I don't think the British are allowed on TRL anyway, unless they've met their quota of heroin consumption (thank you, Amy Winehouse).
Real quickly, I'll note my other concerns for this movie:
1) Jason Stratham, after talking you up in my Hitman post as Hollywood's resident bald badass, you come out with HAIR in this movie? How could you?!
2) Ray Liotta - look, Ray is a great guy and all, but no matter how many credentials show up on movie websites, he is only known for Goodfellas. Despite being all the way back in 1990, if you search for Ray Liotta on IMDB, it will say in parenthesis: "actor, Goodfellas" Check it out...I know you want to. That's just how it is. I don't even say Ray Liotta anymore, I just say "Goodfellas" is starring in this movie. To have him in another gangster movie...it could get confusing.
3) The tagline - "The greatest trick that he ever pulled was making you believe that he is you.". Uh, who? Satan? If it is referencing the Usual Suspect lines, that's what would be implied...
4) Chess – we get it, your plan is complicated. Unless your plan involves something called a “Latvian Gambit” though, please, stop getting so many shots of the chess board.Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The Golden Compass
Trailer (Opens 12/7)
Ah, controversy. How I love thee.......
The Church is angry, and why not? In the last 5 years or so the Church has been spoiled with the making of movies. With both The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia being made in film form, movies with Christian/Catholic undertones have been prevalent over the last couple of Christmases. This, the Church is ok with.....
Now though, Hollywood has gone and done it. They chose a book that not only does not have religious undertones, but it actually shows negative feelings about the Church. I know what you are thinking.... "There are people with negative feelings towards the Church? Don't they know they are going to hell?" I know it is shocking, but yes, apparently there are these people. As for their final destination I can not speak, but what I do know is that God has not smited (directly) any Harry Potter movie-goers. (and they are definitely going to the bad place because Dumbledore was gay and they all like him.)
" I want you...... to be gay"
Just listen to this quote from the Catholic League President....
"The protest is this: It's being done at Christmastime, and when parents don't find the film troubling, they're going to buy the books for their kids as Christmas gifts. They're doing it through the back door, in a stealth fashion....."
Seriously, the only thing more alarming than this Catholic guy's use of the phrase "back door" is the problem this book poses to our children. You fill in the blank.
If kids like the movie and buy the book they will learn to ________.
a.) Read
b.) Think
C.) Question
D.) Burn in Hell
If you answered D, you should spend more time stopping Britney from breaking into your confessionals and less time bashing books that no one is forcing you to see the movie adaptation of (although I do appreciate the warning).
The Church has a legit point in that they want to warn people that this movie trilogy may become darker. The book does have an anti-religion view, and the author did set out to write the anti-Narnia, but is this really what is bugging the church?
Personally I think the real reason why the Church is so angry is because of the use of the polar bear. This polar bear is definitely trying to upset the balance of the food chain. All good church-goers know that Aslan the lion is the most powerful animal that does not exist. Lets take a look at their stats.
Aslan- This lion is definitely king of the jungle and Narnia. Not only can he speak, fly, and kick serious butt, but he can also raise from the dead. His trainer had this to say about Aslan, "I think the best thing is that he never lets the fame get to his head. He is a humble guy. He isn't rolling with an entourage or waiving guns at hoes in clubs. He is quality."
Polar Bear- Beneath his "pure white" image, this polar bear is one crazy bear foe. Like Aslan, the bear can talk, but unlike Aslan the polar bear boasts protective armor on his head, and torso. Polar bear's trainer was quite defensive when we asked him about the bears poor public image, " Yah, polar bear has a bad image. They caught him eating that poor walrus ( yikes.... how much blood is in a walrus?) and everything went downhill from there. He has a good bear under there somewhere."
I'll leave it up to you to decide who will win, but here is a prior match up (bear vs. lion) that you might be interested in while you wait for the movie to drop.
We need to set up this fight... Too bad Michael Vick is in jail.
Ah, controversy. How I love thee.......
The Church is angry, and why not? In the last 5 years or so the Church has been spoiled with the making of movies. With both The Lord of the Rings and The Chronicles of Narnia being made in film form, movies with Christian/Catholic undertones have been prevalent over the last couple of Christmases. This, the Church is ok with.....
Now though, Hollywood has gone and done it. They chose a book that not only does not have religious undertones, but it actually shows negative feelings about the Church. I know what you are thinking.... "There are people with negative feelings towards the Church? Don't they know they are going to hell?" I know it is shocking, but yes, apparently there are these people. As for their final destination I can not speak, but what I do know is that God has not smited (directly) any Harry Potter movie-goers. (and they are definitely going to the bad place because Dumbledore was gay and they all like him.)
" I want you...... to be gay"
Just listen to this quote from the Catholic League President....
"The protest is this: It's being done at Christmastime, and when parents don't find the film troubling, they're going to buy the books for their kids as Christmas gifts. They're doing it through the back door, in a stealth fashion....."Seriously, the only thing more alarming than this Catholic guy's use of the phrase "back door" is the problem this book poses to our children. You fill in the blank.
If kids like the movie and buy the book they will learn to ________.
a.) Read
b.) Think
C.) Question
D.) Burn in Hell
If you answered D, you should spend more time stopping Britney from breaking into your confessionals and less time bashing books that no one is forcing you to see the movie adaptation of (although I do appreciate the warning).
The Church has a legit point in that they want to warn people that this movie trilogy may become darker. The book does have an anti-religion view, and the author did set out to write the anti-Narnia, but is this really what is bugging the church?
Personally I think the real reason why the Church is so angry is because of the use of the polar bear. This polar bear is definitely trying to upset the balance of the food chain. All good church-goers know that Aslan the lion is the most powerful animal that does not exist. Lets take a look at their stats.
Aslan- This lion is definitely king of the jungle and Narnia. Not only can he speak, fly, and kick serious butt, but he can also raise from the dead. His trainer had this to say about Aslan, "I think the best thing is that he never lets the fame get to his head. He is a humble guy. He isn't rolling with an entourage or waiving guns at hoes in clubs. He is quality."
Polar Bear- Beneath his "pure white" image, this polar bear is one crazy bear foe. Like Aslan, the bear can talk, but unlike Aslan the polar bear boasts protective armor on his head, and torso. Polar bear's trainer was quite defensive when we asked him about the bears poor public image, " Yah, polar bear has a bad image. They caught him eating that poor walrus ( yikes.... how much blood is in a walrus?) and everything went downhill from there. He has a good bear under there somewhere."I'll leave it up to you to decide who will win, but here is a prior match up (bear vs. lion) that you might be interested in while you wait for the movie to drop.
We need to set up this fight... Too bad Michael Vick is in jail.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Atonement
Trailer (Opening 12/7)
It all started with Pride and Prejudice. Keira Knightley wrapped up her 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, enjoyed her Oscar nomination, and strutted around the U.K. like she owned the place. James McAvoy, the pride and joy of Scotland, then decided to channel William Wallace and fight back with his own part in the Jane Austen franchise, in Becoming Jane. But there was not much success in that one.
Said Knightley, “I've seen better acting from my tea and crumpets.”
Said McAvoy (in Sean Connery accent), “Your mother is a whore.”
And of course, there was only one way to settle the argument: with an ACT-OFF. Their weapon, obviously, would be another Jane Austen film. Unfortunately, because Austen's intellectual property had already been thoroughly raped and pillaged, and because her bones were shattered from rolling over in her grave so many times, a story of forbidden British love needed to be found by another author.
This, then, was how Knightley and McAvoy came to star together in Atonement. Sooo, which will best showcase the British-passion-hidden-below-proper-manners? The increasingly shrinking Knightley and her 47-pound frame (that's 21 Kilos), or the Scottish version of Ryan Gosling? The loser will be forced to costar in the next Mr. Bean film.
Onto the actual story. As it turns out, the villain that stops these two lovers from living happily ever after is...a little girl. Horrifying! Does she have the telekinetic powers to blow up school dances, or is she possessed by the devil? Nope, just her imagination. Apparently, she falsely accuses the McAvoy character of rape.
There are themes with every movie, and lessons to be learned. My question is this - do we really want the lesson of a movie to be, "don't believe a little girl when she claims rape, because she's probably just making it up"? Uh, no. I'll reserve my I-told-you-so's for when sleazy lawyers start using the "Atonement" defense at trials.
Of course, there are worse things things that the girl could've done to James McAvoy with her imagination...just look at what those damned Narnia kids caused with THEIR imagination:
The uhh, human part does not begin until ABOVE the waist -- Knightley would have to be pretty adventurous to stay with him here. Still, in this state, McAvoy would definitely be "fawning" over her...
Anyhow, since the book won numerous awards and they managed to keep John Leguizamo out of the adaptation, I predict the critics will lap this up. There is even some buzz about the movie itself winning awards. I'll nominate it for this year's "movie most responsible for creating women's unrealistic expectations for romance" award, and McAvoy himself for "actor that men most want to punch in the face".
So yeah, if you're looking forward to Atonement, and wondering about Ian McEwan's (the author of Atonement) latest book, On Chesil Beach, you can get the following synopsis from Amazon:
It is 1962 when Edward and Florence, 23 and 22 respectively, marry and repair to a hotel on the Dorset coast for their honeymoon. They are both virgins, both apprehensive about what's next.... Through a tense dinner in their room, because Florence has decided that the weather is not fine enough to dine on the terrace, they are attended by two local boys acting as waiters.
It is also being made into a movie, but, uh, you'll need to rent it from your local porn-shop.
It all started with Pride and Prejudice. Keira Knightley wrapped up her 85% on Rotten Tomatoes, enjoyed her Oscar nomination, and strutted around the U.K. like she owned the place. James McAvoy, the pride and joy of Scotland, then decided to channel William Wallace and fight back with his own part in the Jane Austen franchise, in Becoming Jane. But there was not much success in that one.
Said Knightley, “I've seen better acting from my tea and crumpets.”
Said McAvoy (in Sean Connery accent), “Your mother is a whore.”
And of course, there was only one way to settle the argument: with an ACT-OFF. Their weapon, obviously, would be another Jane Austen film. Unfortunately, because Austen's intellectual property had already been thoroughly raped and pillaged, and because her bones were shattered from rolling over in her grave so many times, a story of forbidden British love needed to be found by another author.
This, then, was how Knightley and McAvoy came to star together in Atonement. Sooo, which will best showcase the British-passion-hidden-below-proper-manners? The increasingly shrinking Knightley and her 47-pound frame (that's 21 Kilos), or the Scottish version of Ryan Gosling? The loser will be forced to costar in the next Mr. Bean film.
Onto the actual story. As it turns out, the villain that stops these two lovers from living happily ever after is...a little girl. Horrifying! Does she have the telekinetic powers to blow up school dances, or is she possessed by the devil? Nope, just her imagination. Apparently, she falsely accuses the McAvoy character of rape.
There are themes with every movie, and lessons to be learned. My question is this - do we really want the lesson of a movie to be, "don't believe a little girl when she claims rape, because she's probably just making it up"? Uh, no. I'll reserve my I-told-you-so's for when sleazy lawyers start using the "Atonement" defense at trials.
Of course, there are worse things things that the girl could've done to James McAvoy with her imagination...just look at what those damned Narnia kids caused with THEIR imagination:
The uhh, human part does not begin until ABOVE the waist -- Knightley would have to be pretty adventurous to stay with him here. Still, in this state, McAvoy would definitely be "fawning" over her...Anyhow, since the book won numerous awards and they managed to keep John Leguizamo out of the adaptation, I predict the critics will lap this up. There is even some buzz about the movie itself winning awards. I'll nominate it for this year's "movie most responsible for creating women's unrealistic expectations for romance" award, and McAvoy himself for "actor that men most want to punch in the face".
So yeah, if you're looking forward to Atonement, and wondering about Ian McEwan's (the author of Atonement) latest book, On Chesil Beach, you can get the following synopsis from Amazon:
It is 1962 when Edward and Florence, 23 and 22 respectively, marry and repair to a hotel on the Dorset coast for their honeymoon. They are both virgins, both apprehensive about what's next.... Through a tense dinner in their room, because Florence has decided that the weather is not fine enough to dine on the terrace, they are attended by two local boys acting as waiters.
It is also being made into a movie, but, uh, you'll need to rent it from your local porn-shop.
Friday, November 23, 2007
He Was a Quiet Man
Trailer (Opens 11/30)
Dude #1- Holy crap! That man has a bundle of dynamite with a timing device strapped to his chest! Holy crap! Holy crap!
Dude #2- Dude, chill... That is a white guy. If he was going to kill a lot of people he would use a sawed off shotgun or a van full of manure. We are sa-- Holy crap! That guy's got a turban!
Probably not the most popular movie poster at airports..
This movie stars Christian Slater, Elisha Cuthbert, and William H. Macy. The trailer starts at the scene of an office shooting. A bald skinny man is shooting up the place, and Slater's character is watching/hiding. Slater decides to "piss off" the shooter who, while concurrently reloading, questions slater with, "Can you tell me what you would call a idiot who is crazy enough to piss off a maniac with a loaded gun?" Slater replies " I would call him a maniac with his own loaded gun." BANG BANG BANG! Slater shoots him and saves the lives of some people in his office, including Alicia Cuthbert. ( Her dad was too busy kicking ass and taking names to save the day today)
Apparently from this stellar performance Slater's character gets promoted to some big job . Now, hold up. Are we Americans sooooo stupid that we don't even want to question Slater's character about why he had a loaded gun? I guess the writers figured that if the American public couldn't tell Lance Bass from N'SYNC was gay, there was NO WAY we were going to notice that people don't feel the need to ask the nerdy--glasses-wearing-middle-aged-balding-guy why he had a loaded gun in his cubicle. Sheep I tell you... SHEEP!
Lance? Gay? Everything I thought I once knew is now wrong!
Anyways, Slater's character goes to the hospital to visit a girl who's life he saved (Cuthbert). I don't really understand this part, because it seems like Slater decides to keep the girl. I guess when you save someone's life they owe you a life debt and you get to keep them. I would definitely except a life debt from Cuthbert. Not so much from Jar Jar Binks though.
Elisha in a wheelchair or the guy with long ears and annoying lisp...
Cuthbert goes on to teach him life lessons and through his time with her he learns that he is beautiful (he takes off his glasses).
The End...
Yes! I have finally found my Lost in Translation meets She's All That meets Office Space meets Rambo.
On a side note, go to the official website and read the text on the sides of the picture. I read this first and thought the movie would rock, but after watching the preview I was less than enthused.
Dude #1- Holy crap! That man has a bundle of dynamite with a timing device strapped to his chest! Holy crap! Holy crap!
Dude #2- Dude, chill... That is a white guy. If he was going to kill a lot of people he would use a sawed off shotgun or a van full of manure. We are sa-- Holy crap! That guy's got a turban!
Probably not the most popular movie poster at airports..
This movie stars Christian Slater, Elisha Cuthbert, and William H. Macy. The trailer starts at the scene of an office shooting. A bald skinny man is shooting up the place, and Slater's character is watching/hiding. Slater decides to "piss off" the shooter who, while concurrently reloading, questions slater with, "Can you tell me what you would call a idiot who is crazy enough to piss off a maniac with a loaded gun?" Slater replies " I would call him a maniac with his own loaded gun." BANG BANG BANG! Slater shoots him and saves the lives of some people in his office, including Alicia Cuthbert. ( Her dad was too busy kicking ass and taking names to save the day today)
Apparently from this stellar performance Slater's character gets promoted to some big job . Now, hold up. Are we Americans sooooo stupid that we don't even want to question Slater's character about why he had a loaded gun? I guess the writers figured that if the American public couldn't tell Lance Bass from N'SYNC was gay, there was NO WAY we were going to notice that people don't feel the need to ask the nerdy--glasses-wearing-middle-aged-balding-guy why he had a loaded gun in his cubicle. Sheep I tell you... SHEEP!
Lance? Gay? Everything I thought I once knew is now wrong!
Anyways, Slater's character goes to the hospital to visit a girl who's life he saved (Cuthbert). I don't really understand this part, because it seems like Slater decides to keep the girl. I guess when you save someone's life they owe you a life debt and you get to keep them. I would definitely except a life debt from Cuthbert. Not so much from Jar Jar Binks though.
Elisha in a wheelchair or the guy with long ears and annoying lisp...
Cuthbert goes on to teach him life lessons and through his time with her he learns that he is beautiful (he takes off his glasses).
The End...
Yes! I have finally found my Lost in Translation meets She's All That meets Office Space meets Rambo.
On a side note, go to the official website and read the text on the sides of the picture. I read this first and thought the movie would rock, but after watching the preview I was less than enthused.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Flawless
Trailer N/A (Opening 11/30)
When I saw that Flawless had two fairly big-name stars (Moore and Caine), and yet was only a limited release and projected to make $750K, I began to grow curious. A quick search of "Flawless" revealed the existence of a terrible 1999 movie with Robert DeNiro by the same name, about "an ultraconservative security guard [who] suffers a debilitating stroke and is assigned to a rehabilitative program that includes singing lessons--with the drag queen next door", and my curiosity turned to suspicion. Now, I'm no conspiracy buff, but is it to crazy to believe that DeNiro, with all his Hollywood connections, is somehow trying to put out a "dummy" movie to cover up the existence of this old one? That perhaps, in like five years, there will be a systematic attack on certain DVD vendors, and thereafter any leftover references to a movie called "Flawless" will be attributed to this 2007 heist film? Honestly, it's something to keep an eye on.
But onto the "new" Flawless...by the looks of things, it would seem that Demi Moore has gone from cradle-snatcher to grave-robber. (Pause for previous joke to set in). She teams up with the remarkably spry, 74-year-old Michael Caine in this flick, thus taking a page straight from the Connery and Zeta-Jones in Entrapment playbook.
In fact, both Flawless and Entrapment employ a similar tactic, especially when trying to downplay the disgusting Hugh Heffner angle. First, they cast brunette women in the leading roles (instead of blondes), and second, they make sure the respective male leads (Connery and Caine) have been knighted by the Queen of England, thus confirming their uprightness. Now if you call Michael Caine a pervert, you'll have the entire British Navy coming after you.
Of course, there is perhaps more to learn about our society based on the subtle DIFFERENCES between these two artistic gems than from their similarities. For one, we see that levels of attractiveness in people MUST be matched. While Sean Connery -- the manliest man in all Mantown -- can pull the insanely hot Catherine Zeta-Jones, the Alec Guinness clone that is Michael Caine must settle for the company of a more Plain (G.I.) Jane.
Two, we realize that money is required to buy attractiveness. In Entrapment, Sean Connery is a retired thief...so plenty of dough still in the bank. On the other hand, Michael Caine plays a janitor. Really, this job is beneath him -- one look should tell you that he was born to play the role of a British butler -- and the results are unsurprising. It should be even less surprising, based on the levels of attractiveness in the cast, that the budget for Entrapment was $66 million (almost $90 million by 2007 standards), whereas Flawless is only planned for limited release.
So, how was this $66 million for Entrapment spent?
Oh yeah. Now we are left to wonder what the quarter-million, Demi Moore equivalent will be.
Anyhow, from the synopsis, we get the following information: "'Flawless' is a crime - drama set in 1960 London, where a soon to retire janitor (Michael Caine) convinces a glass-ceiling constrained American executive (Demi Moore) to help him steal a handful of diamonds from their employer, the London Diamond Corporation."
Demi Moore is constrained by a glass-ceiling?! This is an absolute travesty! Think of all the things she's accomplished in her day that have NOTHING to do with her gender: sex with a non-tactile being, million dollar prostitution, seducing and sexually harassing an employee, stripping for a senator...I mean, come on! Anybody who has THESE movie posters on her resume should not possibly be overlooked for a job:
Errr, right. As mentioned previously, the film is only projected to make about $750K, and that is ridiculous. Now that men of this world know that Moore will date ANYTHING between the ages of 20 and 80, that's got to bring a few numbers to the theater, right? RIGHT?
When I saw that Flawless had two fairly big-name stars (Moore and Caine), and yet was only a limited release and projected to make $750K, I began to grow curious. A quick search of "Flawless" revealed the existence of a terrible 1999 movie with Robert DeNiro by the same name, about "an ultraconservative security guard [who] suffers a debilitating stroke and is assigned to a rehabilitative program that includes singing lessons--with the drag queen next door", and my curiosity turned to suspicion. Now, I'm no conspiracy buff, but is it to crazy to believe that DeNiro, with all his Hollywood connections, is somehow trying to put out a "dummy" movie to cover up the existence of this old one? That perhaps, in like five years, there will be a systematic attack on certain DVD vendors, and thereafter any leftover references to a movie called "Flawless" will be attributed to this 2007 heist film? Honestly, it's something to keep an eye on.
But onto the "new" Flawless...by the looks of things, it would seem that Demi Moore has gone from cradle-snatcher to grave-robber. (Pause for previous joke to set in). She teams up with the remarkably spry, 74-year-old Michael Caine in this flick, thus taking a page straight from the Connery and Zeta-Jones in Entrapment playbook.
In fact, both Flawless and Entrapment employ a similar tactic, especially when trying to downplay the disgusting Hugh Heffner angle. First, they cast brunette women in the leading roles (instead of blondes), and second, they make sure the respective male leads (Connery and Caine) have been knighted by the Queen of England, thus confirming their uprightness. Now if you call Michael Caine a pervert, you'll have the entire British Navy coming after you.
Of course, there is perhaps more to learn about our society based on the subtle DIFFERENCES between these two artistic gems than from their similarities. For one, we see that levels of attractiveness in people MUST be matched. While Sean Connery -- the manliest man in all Mantown -- can pull the insanely hot Catherine Zeta-Jones, the Alec Guinness clone that is Michael Caine must settle for the company of a more Plain (G.I.) Jane.
Two, we realize that money is required to buy attractiveness. In Entrapment, Sean Connery is a retired thief...so plenty of dough still in the bank. On the other hand, Michael Caine plays a janitor. Really, this job is beneath him -- one look should tell you that he was born to play the role of a British butler -- and the results are unsurprising. It should be even less surprising, based on the levels of attractiveness in the cast, that the budget for Entrapment was $66 million (almost $90 million by 2007 standards), whereas Flawless is only planned for limited release.
So, how was this $66 million for Entrapment spent?
Oh yeah. Now we are left to wonder what the quarter-million, Demi Moore equivalent will be.Anyhow, from the synopsis, we get the following information: "'Flawless' is a crime - drama set in 1960 London, where a soon to retire janitor (Michael Caine) convinces a glass-ceiling constrained American executive (Demi Moore) to help him steal a handful of diamonds from their employer, the London Diamond Corporation."
Demi Moore is constrained by a glass-ceiling?! This is an absolute travesty! Think of all the things she's accomplished in her day that have NOTHING to do with her gender: sex with a non-tactile being, million dollar prostitution, seducing and sexually harassing an employee, stripping for a senator...I mean, come on! Anybody who has THESE movie posters on her resume should not possibly be overlooked for a job:
Errr, right. As mentioned previously, the film is only projected to make about $750K, and that is ridiculous. Now that men of this world know that Moore will date ANYTHING between the ages of 20 and 80, that's got to bring a few numbers to the theater, right? RIGHT?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Weekend Warning
Well, we've got an early edition of Weekend Warning this week, as movies are opening for Thanksgiving. Last week all movies hit the under; Beowulf ($27.5 out of $30.0 million) and Mr. Magorium ($9.6 out of $10.7 million) were close, while Love in the Time of Cholera put up a pathetic $1.9 million (out of $4.7).
Anyhow, onto the show for the week...put your own guesses in the comments to forever immortalize your genius. Once again, we give you a chance to click on the movies below and heed our preview reviews...
Enchanted ($34.0 million) - According to James O'Ehley: "...the tween girls whom this movies is aimed at will have a blast."
Troy: You hear that, 11 year-old girls? Now that decision between Mary's birthday at the Hannah Montana concert and Sherry's party at the movies just got interesting. Go with the girl who's more popular. (UNDER)
Torch:I am boycotting Disney until they decide to make a legit animated movie again. Oh, and I want songs in it.....and I want Tim Rice to write them. (OVER)
Anyhow, onto the show for the week...put your own guesses in the comments to forever immortalize your genius. Once again, we give you a chance to click on the movies below and heed our preview reviews...
Enchanted ($34.0 million) - According to James O'Ehley: "...the tween girls whom this movies is aimed at will have a blast." Troy: You hear that, 11 year-old girls? Now that decision between Mary's birthday at the Hannah Montana concert and Sherry's party at the movies just got interesting. Go with the girl who's more popular. (UNDER)
Torch:I am boycotting Disney until they decide to make a legit animated movie again. Oh, and I want songs in it.....and I want Tim Rice to write them. (OVER)
Hitman ($9.8 million) - There have been no reviews for the movie so far, so we'll take this one from Gamespot: "The original game's extremely steep learning curve isn't nearly as insurmountable in the sequel, since at normal difficulty, 47 can sustain massive amounts of damage (thanks to good old genetic engineering) and can still finish most missions if he blows his cover. Also, the fact that you can save your progress during missions certainly helps." Uh, sure, we can extrapolate that for the movie.Troy: The trailer says Agent 47 is bred from the most dangerous criminals...so why is he white? -- the United States Prison System. (UNDER)
Torch: If we hit men, shouldn't we hit woman also? Chivalry is dead. I'm just making it known. (UNDER)
August Rush ($7.3 million) - So, here is what Jolene Mendez has to say: "August will have you Rushing to theatres to witness his musical masterpiece." We also had a similarly awful pun like that in our original review...we cut it. If you want to take this person's advice, by all means, ride your magical music notes to the "theatre".Troy: Remember back when Robin Williams was funny? Yeah, neither do I. Go back and watch Good Morning Vietnam, with Forest Whitaker choking over his own fake laughs, and you'll wonder how Williams has lived on the myth of being a comedy actor for so long. If people criticized Studio 60 for it's in-show sketches being impossible to believe as funny, can't we wonder why the soldiers were supposed to be in love with the extremely unfunny DJ in Vietnam? (UNDER)
Torch: This movie is only encouraging orphans to work harder. They are sooooo lazy. I mean, they let their parents die. (UNDER)
The Mist ($11.0 million) - Well, you better believe we are cultured around here...even The New Yorker agrees with our assessment: "'The Mist' is itself a supermarket of B-movie essentials, handsomely stocked with bad science, stupid behavior, chewable lines of dialogue, religious fruitcakes, and a fine display of monsters...The line 'There’s something in the mist!' is a straight lift from 'There’s something in the fog!,' spoken twenty-seven years ago in John Carpenter’s 'The Fog,' and it shows that these movies are not meditations on the tragedy of human overreach. They’re weather reports."Troy: It's like the mist is what's pretty, you know? All gold and [CLAW TO THE THROAT] ...Nothing gold can stay. (OVER)
Torch: This movie falls somewhere in between the greatness of the video game Myst, and the grossness of the mist you feel on your feet when you use the urinal wearing flip-flops. (UNDER)
Troy (2-1)
Torch (3-0)
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Thomas Kinkade's Home for Christmas
(Opening- Hopefully Not)Imagine if you were a movie producer, and you had your pick of THOUSANDS of scripts. You have access to scripts about sports teams that could, highschoolers trying to get laid, your basic shoot and kill movie and the always relevant courtroom drama.
How then, do you walk into your boss's office and tell him that the next big movie is going to be about the life of an artist? Your boss would raise his eyebrows a bit, but be intrigued to find out which interesting artist you thought would be worthy of a major motion picture. Here comes the kicker. Not only is it about an artist, but it is about an artist that paints plates and mini Christmas villages often up for grabs at silent PTA auctions attended by 40-something-year-old-right-wing-Christian-yuppies. Thomas Kinkade..
Listen to this synopsis:
" Barely out of school and still searching for his voice as an artist, twenty-year-old Thom looks forward to another idyllic holiday in his hometown of Placerville, CA...... the town’s tourist industry is failing, Thom’s ailing, once-brilliant mentor, Glen, has lost his ability to paint, and Thom’s spirited mother, MaryAnne, reveals that she’s losing their family home to foreclosure."
Seriously, the most interesting thing about that movie plot is my own personal revelation that you can spell Tom, with an H. Thom? What the crap..
Now, I respect this producer's thought that an artist's life would make a good movie, but what makes Thomas Kinkade qualified. Couldn't he have found not only a better painter, but a painter with a more interesting life?! I know growing up on the streets of Placerville can lead to some intense drama, but COME ON. Since he obviously couldn't do the legwork for this movie, I took the liberty of doing my own research. I present to you, "Artists with more interesting lives than Thomas Kinkade." (at least the first 3 out of 46,594,586,095,804,565,324,704,084,032,843 of them)
1.) Vincent van Gogh- The title role would be played by Christopher Walken.( See the resemblance?) The story would briefly visit Van Gogh's days as both a teacher and a missionary, but it's main plot would focus on the mad genius that Van Gogh became in his later days. We would see Van Gogh's demise eventually be his own mind as he decided to cut off his ear and check into a psychiatric home. Possible causes: Alcoholism, Eating paint.(Probably from China)
Fernando Botero- Ah, the esteemed "painter of fat women". Bonus points for being Columbian. Just to make the movie more interesting we would throw in a drug trafficking charge in which Botero used his paintings extra large proportions to smuggle in more drugs than the competitors.Drug Lord- Ah, how does Botero do it?
Minion- Fat chicks.....
Agostino Tassi- This has to be my personal favorite. This movie starts as a story of hidden origins. Tassi told people he was from Rome in order to gain nobility when in reality he was from Placerville-- I mean Perugia. Tassi was known as a painter of frescoes until one day his partners daughter claimed that he tried to get fresh with (raped) her. Known as a man of " turbulent character and dissolute habits" Tassi was later accused of hiring bandits to kill his wife, and raping another wife and sister-in-law. He also stole some things on the side. And you thought 50 cent's life story was interesting....Now, was that so hard?
Maybe the producer was just blinded by "The Painter of Light."
Update: This movie will actually not be coming out this Christmas due to some music rights issues. I didn't even know music had rights......
Anyways, this could be legit, OR it could be an attempt for the studio to back out without looking like complete idiots. It is pretty sad when the only thing that might help your movie next year is if the person it is based on dies. I would watch your back if I was you Tom with an H!
Monday, November 19, 2007
Awake
Trailer (Opens 11/30)
Before I start, I want to add the following disclaimer: I am aware that this is Hayden Christensen's first major film since playing Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars films, and I know that you think I'll be going down that path, but I WILL resist the urge. It takes a lot of internal strength, but sometimes you need to use the FOR...titude within yourself and power through. Wish me luck.
Anyhow, the trailer and synopsis both tell us the same thing about this movie: “Awake is a psychological thriller about a common occurrence called 'anesthetic awareness'...wherein a patient's failed anesthesia leaves him fully conscious but physically paralyzed during surgery.”
Certainly, it must be a traumatic experience to feel pain throughout the surgery, but does anyone notice anything wrong with this being the basis for a major motion picture? Like -- I don't know – the fact that he is completely paralyzed? As in, can't move. As in, nothing can happen. I don't know about you, but typically when I shell out $10 for movie, I like to see the main character, uh, DO SOMETHING.
Instead, we get the awkward “thought voice-over”, which is typically relegated to movies like the Shaggy Dog (where it represent Tim Allen's thoughts when he is in “dog form”).
In Awake we're left believing the squirrel outside the window probably WOULD tell a more exciting story. Tragic. I'm guessing we'll get at least ten critics saying the following line: “The movie may be called AWAKE, but this thing is sure to put you to SLEEP.” ZING!
And yet, perhaps the greatest travesty is the way that they've mangled the simple three elements of this story. Gee, we have one main guy, a bed, and Jessica Alba...how do you think we can make this interesting? Personally, I can think of at least ten different “ways”. Of course, one of them DOES NOT involve knocking the guy out for 90 minutes, and then having Jessica Alba “struggle with her own demons as a terrifying drama unfolds around the couple.” Do you know what would be more interesting than having Jessica Alba fight with her personal demons? Having her fight with ACTUAL demons.
But alas, we're stuck trying to figure out what horrible secrets from the past haunt Jessica in this movie. Let's take a few guesses. Is it...
a) Being Max Guevera (The Dark Angel) – sure, I referenced this a few weeks ago in my Hitman post, and sure, she's a genetically engineered super-soldier. But she fights for Good now, and, as hot as she looks, I'm sure we can overlook some of the killing. VERDICT: Not haunting her.
Before I start, I want to add the following disclaimer: I am aware that this is Hayden Christensen's first major film since playing Anakin Skywalker in the Star Wars films, and I know that you think I'll be going down that path, but I WILL resist the urge. It takes a lot of internal strength, but sometimes you need to use the FOR...titude within yourself and power through. Wish me luck.
Anyhow, the trailer and synopsis both tell us the same thing about this movie: “Awake is a psychological thriller about a common occurrence called 'anesthetic awareness'...wherein a patient's failed anesthesia leaves him fully conscious but physically paralyzed during surgery.”
Certainly, it must be a traumatic experience to feel pain throughout the surgery, but does anyone notice anything wrong with this being the basis for a major motion picture? Like -- I don't know – the fact that he is completely paralyzed? As in, can't move. As in, nothing can happen. I don't know about you, but typically when I shell out $10 for movie, I like to see the main character, uh, DO SOMETHING.
Instead, we get the awkward “thought voice-over”, which is typically relegated to movies like the Shaggy Dog (where it represent Tim Allen's thoughts when he is in “dog form”).
In Awake we're left believing the squirrel outside the window probably WOULD tell a more exciting story. Tragic. I'm guessing we'll get at least ten critics saying the following line: “The movie may be called AWAKE, but this thing is sure to put you to SLEEP.” ZING!
And yet, perhaps the greatest travesty is the way that they've mangled the simple three elements of this story. Gee, we have one main guy, a bed, and Jessica Alba...how do you think we can make this interesting? Personally, I can think of at least ten different “ways”. Of course, one of them DOES NOT involve knocking the guy out for 90 minutes, and then having Jessica Alba “struggle with her own demons as a terrifying drama unfolds around the couple.” Do you know what would be more interesting than having Jessica Alba fight with her personal demons? Having her fight with ACTUAL demons.
But alas, we're stuck trying to figure out what horrible secrets from the past haunt Jessica in this movie. Let's take a few guesses. Is it...
a) Being Max Guevera (The Dark Angel) – sure, I referenced this a few weeks ago in my Hitman post, and sure, she's a genetically engineered super-soldier. But she fights for Good now, and, as hot as she looks, I'm sure we can overlook some of the killing. VERDICT: Not haunting her.
b) Being Sue Storm – uh, she seems to have gone all Aryan on us here. Plus, instead of allowing Halle Berry to hold onto one thing for old times' sake, she snatched the “hot chick with mutant powers named 'Storm'” title and never looked back. That's just not fair. Still, it's not necessarily something so sinister that you'd need to keep it from your husband. VERDICT: Not haunting her.
c) Being John Malkovich – oops, she never was John. VERDICT: Not haunting her.
Okay, what we're really looking for is something so terrible that the very thought of it makes her sick, something so evil that despite wanting to bury it within the depths of her soul, it continues to appear in her nightmares. Something...
d) Dane Cook – Oh geez. No. NO. This did NOT happen, right? VERDICT: Haunts her EVERY DAY OF HER LIFE.
From the trailer, we know this movie promises at least a few other things. For one, Jessica Alba is constantly topless, but with her back facing the camera...
And two, there are plenty of lightsaber battles (sorry, I gave into the...well, you know which side). Enjoy...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]