News Bites: "Men in Black III"?

- Posted by Rusty


Source: The Hollywood Reporter
(Found via HitFix)

Yep, Men in Black III may actually be happening. I heard rumors about this a few months ago, though nothing conclusive; well, now, Sony hired Tropic Thunder writer Etan Cohen (who also wrote the hilarious Idiocracy, and an upcoming Sherlock Holmes comedy with Will Ferrell as Watson and Sacha Baron Cohen as Holmes). Good news? Maybe. I loved the original as a kid, and, like many, was pretty disappointed with the sequel (Will Smith even said that the film was a letdown). Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones aren’t signed to return yet, but they might if the script is good enough. Could be something worthwhile here; let’s see how this develops. I’d love a good MiB sequel, one that recaptures the smart and very hip humor of the first one.

Actually, for an embarrassing factoid, my 7th grade English teacher made us write (and justify! With lots of adjectives!) which sequel we’d most like to see. I chose Men in Black—I loved that world, and the possibilities for more good stories seemed endless. If they get the cast back, and hammer out a strong script, this might just take the series out on a good note.

What do you guys think? Up for more adventures with J and K, or should they just let this series die? And could Will Smith still make “this look good”, or use that “midget cricket” to blast away some alien scum?

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures. [end of post] Read more!

What's on the Menu (October 30 - November 1)

- Posted by Rusty

Talk about a quiet Halloween weekend. With not one scary movie in sight, all we have is a long-delayed sequel, a tiny indie, and a tribute to a musical icon. Let’s break them down…


1. “The Boondock Saints II: All Saints’ Day” - I always called the original Boondock Saints Tarantino-lite—I wasn’t crazy about it, but it had a bunch of great moments, and actually a pretty fun concept. You had your Irish vigilantes, a cross-dressing Willem Defoe, and the great comedian Billy Connelly as a long-haired, uber-assassin in some zany, inventive action sequences. Not the smartest (or wittiest) crime movie (nothing near my favorites like Snatch or Pulp Fiction), though certainly an enjoyable one. And, man, does this thing have its followers. I think the original was one of the biggest cult hits ever, and I saw tons of people with Boondock Saints posters on their dorm walls. So, for all the fans, the long-promised sequel should be right up your alley. The reviews aren’t strong (much like the first one), though word from the fans who caught early screenings is ecstatic. This new movie finds the McManus brothers, those likeable Irish bad-guy slayers, returning to Boston to find the person framing them for murder. Could be a fun ride, and it’ll definitely be a treat to watch the entire original cast (save for Willem Defoe) return. It’s playing only in the big cities for now, but it should expand in a few weeks time.

2. “Michael Jackson’s ‘This is It’” - I’m not sure how I feel about this. On one part, it might be a fitting tribute; you’ll get to see the King of Pop in his element, prepping his huge comeback show, though one that was sadly not to be. On the other, this reeks of a cash ploy, especially since this behind-the-scenes footage was never meant to be a movie, and was hastily put together and rushed to theaters following Jackson’s death. It probably won’t be a great (or insightful) film; then again, fans might not care, and the reviews are actually pretty strong (my idol, Roger Ebert, gave it the maximum rating of 4 stars). Plus, from what I hear, the peeks inside the creative process are interesting, and it’s good to see Jackson as the talented artist, and not as the man with headline-grabbing issues. Might be worth checking out, especially if you’re an admirer and want to catch Jackson’s final stage hurrah.

3. “Gentlemen Broncos” - I know next to nothing about this movie, save that it’s from the Napoleon Dynamite team, it stars Flight of the Concords’ hilarious Jemaine Clement, and it has a cameo from one of my favorite actors, Sam Rockwell. I like the concept too: Jemaine Clement is a failed sci-fi writer who finally gets some attention…by plagiarizing the stories from his student (played by the talented Michael Angarano, from Sky High, The Forbidden Kingdom, and who was Jack’s son on Will & Grace). I didn’t really like Napoleon Dynamite, though I kind of dug director Jared Hess’ next film, Nacho Libre; still, his brand of low-key humor doesn’t always work, and from the mostly poor reviews, I’m not really itching to see this. Then again, people loved Napoleon Dynamite and hated Nacho Libre, so who knows? It might not be for me, but it could turn out to be another under-the-radar crowd-pleaser.

And that’s all we have for this Halloween weekend. Are you guys going to see one of the new releases, or planning to catch up on something older (like Where the Wild Things Are, the awesome Zombieland, or the cool-looking chiller, Paranormal Activity)?

Me? I think I’ll (finally!) catch the Toy Story double feature and hopefully check out Paranormal Activity as well. After all, last year, I watched Shaun of the Dead for Halloween—can’t break the scary-movie tradition now, right?

Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

News Bites: Full-length “Avatar” trailer now online!

Check this out below. You won’t be sorry…

Wow. On a visual level alone, Avatar looks to be something amazing—a true movie-going experience, something that we haven’t had in quite some time... [more thoughts after the jump]

I like that the Na’vi, those blue, cat-like creatures on the gorgeous planet of Pandora look like real things. Real, breathing creatures that seem to occupy space and interact believably with the human characters. And just look at those surroundings, with the forest beasts, flying dragon-things, the floating mountains, and the poppy, stoner-ific colors. For special-effects, this looks to be one for the books.

This is also our first real glimpse into the story. We saw 20 minutes of footage at Comic-Con—beautiful stuff, but we barely got a sense of what the rest of the movie will bring. This gives us a better idea. Sam Worthington is sent undercover (using his “avatar,” a special, psychically-connected being made form Na’vi and human DNA) to infiltrate the primitive lands, and help the “good guys” get what they want, in this case being rare natural resources. I think we know where this story will go—Worthington will have a change of heart, he’ll see the beauty of the uncorrupted, indigenous aliens, and fight back against that greedy human military. We’ve seen variations on this before, and, minus the totally original setting, I doubt this one will break new ground in terms of story beats.

Still, Cameron could deliver something worthwhile here. He’s never been the most original storyteller, but he’s a master of details—for good characters, the right emotional balance, actions sequences that actually resonate (this is the same guy that made Terminator 2 have a heart—he’s a real talent when he’s in his element). I’m hoping Avatar will compensate for familiarity with those Cameron trademarks. Impossible to tell now, but this 3 ½ minute trailer is one whopper of a preview. If it fails, it’ll be one of the most good-looking weak movies ever. If it reaches Lord of the Rings-like epic brilliance? Well, consider us lucky viewers then.

What do you guys think? Does this make you want to see Avatar (which comes out in IMAX 3D glory December 18th) any more or less?

Trailer courtesy of Yahoo! Movies.
Read more!

News Bites: “Mad Max 4” is Official

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Variety
(Found via HitFix)

Any Mad Max fans out there? Honestly, I watched The Road Warrior (the American-re-titled Mad Max 2), and while I appreciated it as a well-made action movie, it just didn’t do it for me. One of these days, I’ll finally catch the original Mad Max and Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome and get a more complete opinion of the trilogy. For all you fans, though, you might be happy to know that original director George Miller (who went on to make Babe and Happy Feet. Kind of a 180 from post-apocalyptic, hard-edged, nihilistic action epics, huh?) is gearing up the long-discussed sequel, Mad Max: Fury Road.

The Mad Max films were about the titled loner, an armed drifter in the near future trying to survive in a wasteland Australia (he was actually once a good cop who watched his family get murdered by savages). I’m not too good on the other details, so if anyone else knows more, pipe in in the comments. I liked that iconography, though—the one, leather-clad Man-with-Nothing-to-Lose, fighting for some minuscule bit of order amidst absolute chaos. Gibson was very good in this, and that paved his way to superstardom with the later, somewhat similar role of Martin Riggs in Lethal Weapon.

As for this new film, details are a bit scarce. Charlize Theron will be the lead female role, and British actor Tom Hardy (I know him best as Handsome Bob in Rock ‘n’ Rolla) will take on the supercharged futuristic muscle cars. So, is he replacing Mel Gibson as Max? Hard to tell at this point…although I’m guessing not. I think Hardy will be some sort of disciple, the similarly badass character (probably with his own leather jacket and convenient shotgun) who takes over the franchise, just like Shia LaBoeuf, who’s definitely being groomed to take the Indiana Jones mantle. Gibson probably won’t have a major role, but I could see him stopping by to pass on the torch and bid farewell to his star-making character.

I can’t say I’m excited about this, though I’m pretty intrigued. If anything, it makes me want to rewatch The Road Warrior, along with the other Mad Max films, just to see what I think now as opposed to 6 years ago.

What do you guys think? Looking forward to one more trip to hell-on-Earth Australia?

Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.
Read more!

News Bites: Joe Wright and Keira Knightley team up for new “My Fair Lady”!

-Posted by Rusty


Source: The Telegraph
(Found via Cinematical)

What a great time for My Fair Lady fans. First, we got a lovely rendition of “I Could Have Danced All Night” on Glee (a surprisingly awesome show that I’m trying to hook all my friends on), and now comes word that the long-discussed remake is closer than ever! I went on in a long, long spiel about my love for Pygmalion, George Bernard Shaw’s original play that inspired the musical. And while we already have a My Fair Lady movie (featuring the immortal Audrey Hepburn and the brilliant Rex Harrison), news broke today that Pride & Prejudice and Atonement helmer Joe Wright will direct the new project, with his leading lady Keira Knightley in the title role...

Very, very cool news. I thought Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice was one of the best literary adaptations ever made—perfectly capturing the spirit of the novel, yet having a voice and personality of its own. He has a knack for sweeping visuals, and, while Atonement was problematic, the performances and dramatic moments were just beautifully done. And he obviously works great with Knightley; two of her absolute best performances were under his direction, and Eliza Doolittle should be no different. Plus, on top of all that, the remake’s screenplay will be from my one of my favorite actresses (and a damn good writer herself), Emma Thompson. Thompson always struck me as a witty, intelligent performer (she also did an uncredited rewrite of Wright’s Pride & Prejudice)—she could do wonders with Shaw’s endlessly quotable dialogue.

I like the idea of a remake on this material. Yes, the Audrey Hepburn movie is very good…but there is a lot to improve upon. The stage show is one of the most enjoyable, vibrant experiences I’ve ever seen, and a new movie (especially under the talented eye of someone like Wright) could finally do that justice. And, really, I’m always up for re-interpretations as long as the creative minds bring something new to the table. My Fair Lady has been on the stage for years, going through dozens (if not hundreds) of alterations in casting, staging, etc. Subtle differences could change the whole experience, often in interesting ways—I’m banking this version of the musical will bring back the wit and energy that somehow got lost in the lavish 1964 movie.

Oh, and for a final tantalizing bit of news: though it’s not 100% official yet, Daniel Craig is circling the role of Henry Higgins, that arch, stuffy, pompous, insufferable, hugely entertaining Professor who transforms Eliza…and, of course, captures her heart—and his own—in the process. Craig is an enormous talent, and if you ever catch any of his interviews, he’s got a sharp sense of humor that could be perfectly applied here. It’s an interesting choice, and one I’m all the more curious to see play out on screen (the picture to the right gives us a good glimpse of his more dapper, playful side).

I’ll keep an eye on this as it develops further. For now, I’m psyched to see Wright and Knightley reteam, and all the more excited to see Pygmalion brought back to the screen with such giant talent behind it. Knightley should make a wonderful Eliza Bennet (her natural spark and feistiness is a perfect fit for both the Cockney flower girl and the Duchess-with-a-brain), and the fact that Craig is being considered goes to show that the filmmakers are looking for a worthy verbal opponent to her. After all, minus the great songs, the play almost works like a great, classic duel of wits. Can't wait to hear if it still rains on that bloody plane in Spain...

How about you guys? Excited at all for a new take on this material? Think Knightley will make a good fit for the iconic big shoes of Audrey Hepburn (let alone the singing powerhouse, Julie Andrews, who originated the role)? And how do you feel about Daniel Craig trading in killing people and badass-world-extravaganzas for some funny, high-profile singing?

And, to cap this off, here’s a bonus video from last week’s Glee. This is my favorite song from My Fair Lady, and it just goes to show how charming a new take could be…



Image courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.
Read more!

What's on the Menu: October 23 - 25

- Posted by Rusty

Sorry for the complete lack of updates, guys—I had the double-whammy of a flu and a new(ish) job (how dare they make me work more, and blog less?!). I’ll do my best to get next week back to regular updates, including some cool new trailers that came out (like Nicolas Cage as a...medieval knight??) and a TV column that I’ve been brainstorming for a while.

In the meanwhile, let’s check out what’s new in theaters this weekend…


1. “Astroboy” - I talked to my manga/comic-guru friend a while back, and, from his ridiculously expansive expertise, he told me that Astroboy is a huge deal in other parts of the world, especially in Japan, where the comic book and cartoon series first originated. I don’t know much about the story; from the trailer, it looks like Astroboy, created by scientists to be an ultimate weapon, must learn to be both a boy and the hero he was destined to be. So, yeah, it’s A.I., just more fun and adventur-y, which could actually pave way for a pretty good film—a Pinocchio story with pizzazz and a cool, futuristic angle. I know the property has a lot of fans, so this might be right up their alley; plus, the voice cast (featuring Kristen bell, Nicolas Cage, and Finding Neverland’s and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory’s Freddie Highmore as Astroboy) is excellent all around. Could be fun—the reviews are generally fair, and, while I don’t feel the need to catch it in theaters, it could be an amusing family film, hopefully satisfying both the die-hard fans and the total newbies.

2. “Saw VI” - This series has its fans; I’m just not one of them. That said, I thought the first one was actually a pretty good horror film, and I liked that it tried to emphasize the psychological elements over the gore. Part II, on the other hand, I thought was god-awful—it traded everything I liked about the original for more disgusting torture scenes. I don’t think these qualify as scary movies (they’re nowhere near the ranks of something genuinely frightening and well-crafted like The Exorcist, The Sixth Sense, or the little-seen Stephen King’s The Mist), but I could understand peopled digging this particular brand of horror. For series-lovers, this is back to home territory—from what I understand of the plot, Jigsaw’s (that crafty, dying (?) serial-killer who teaches people to live their lives) new successor runs another torture/group-therapy session, and there’ll probably be some twists along the way. It’s become pretty much tradition to have one of these films every Halloween, and as long as they keep making money, I think its studio, Lionsgate, will continue pumping them out. Expect this one to do well at the box-office…although if you’re looking for some good Halloween scares, I think the buzzy Paranormal Activity sounds much more tempting…

3. “Amelia” - Shouldn’t this look better? The story of Amelia Earhart, one of America’s most enduring icons and the historic pilot, this stars Hilary Swank, Ewan McGregor, and Richard Gere, and directed by acclaimed filmmaker, Mira Nair (Vanity Fair, Monsoon Wedding, The Namesake). It should have Oscar written all over it…but something about it is not working for me. I can’t put my finger on it (maybe it looks too much like a generic biopic? Where’s that passion and enthusiasm and zeitgeist fascination that Earhart represented?), though I hope that this is a good movie that’s just badly advertised. That cast is amazing, and this is a story that should be told on the big screen, especially if it covers Earhart’s tragic disappearance somewhere over the Pacific Ocean. The potential is here—let’s hope that, despite the mediocre reviews, Swank could work some more of here award-winning magic…and make us forget that Amy Adams already made a terrific Amelia in Night at the Museum 2.

4. "The Vampire’s Assistant: Cirque du Freak" - From what I hear, the Cirque du Freak books (that inspired this movie) are actually smart and very entertaining—supposedly excellent reads for teens in Harry Potter-withdrawal (ah, how I sympathize…). Sadly, I didn’t get any of that vibe in the trailer, which over-emphasized the vampires (probably trying to capitalize on our recent vampire obsession with Twilight, True Blood, and The Vampire Diaries) and barely gave us a sense of the plot. Basic premise: to save his friend’s life (which the trailer ignored, making it look like the story's young hero was just bored), a boy makes a deal with a vampire and his band of travelling circus freaks, joining them in immortality and a centuries-long feud with rival vampires. The cast is a colorful group of great performers, including John C. Reilly, Salma Hayek (as a bearded lady!), Ken Watanabe, 30 Rock’s Jane Krakowski, and Willem Defoe in reliable villain/evil-vampire mode (a treat to see after his Oscar-nominated turn in Shadow of the Vampire). It’s also from Paul Weitz, the director who gave us American Pie, About a Boy, In Good Company, and the unfortunate American Dreamz (which still deserved props for being so out-there and impeccably cast). He’s an interesting filmmaker, and I have a feeling the final product will be a very flawed film that’s still somewhat worth seeing, especially for the quirky imagination on display (L.A. Confidential and A Knight's Tale scribe Brian Helgeland also pitched into the script, so there's some more incentive for me). Universal’s hoping for a franchise with this one; on the interview circuit, Defoe even mentioned that his character is barely in here, but will take center stage if we ever see a sequel. Not sure if that will happen (and I don’t quite feel like catching this in theaters)…but it looks like a good rental for sometime in the future.

5. “The Canyon” - The Canyon’s opening in a tiny, limited release…but I’m going to selfishly spotlight it solely for one of my biggest crushes—Chuck star Yvonne Strahovski. As far as I know, this is her first movie released here (at least since Chuck came on the air), and it’s not a bad horror premise: basically, two newlyweds find themselves stranded and alone in the Grand Canyon (complete with paranoia…and wild wolves!); it might be terrible, but it could also surprise us, and turn out to be a tense, well-acted, micro-budget creeper. It reminds me a bit of The Ruins, a horror movie from about two years ago that lots of people hated (and one I certainly don’t want to see it again), but it was such a tense, emotionally involving experience that I kind of admired it. This one seems to be in a similar vein, and Yvonne Strahovski, besides being unbearably beautiful (and giving hope to geeks everywhere for loving Zachary Levi’s Chuck, just the coolest nerd of all time!) is actually a fantastic actress, so I’m curious to see what she’ll do with her first big-screen starring role. Not a must-see, but it could be something small and interesting worth seeking out.

And that’s all the major releases for this week. Are you guys planning to catch one of these this weekend? Any of these sound interesting?

I think I’m out for any new movies this weekend, but I’m seeing Law Abiding Citizen next week, which I’ll review right after (along with my long-delayed reviews of the good-but-flawed Invention of Lying and Bruce Willis’ interesting-but-crappy Surrogates). See you guys next time!
Read more!

What's on the Menu: October 16 - 18

- Posted by Rusty

Sorry in advance, you guys—I’m fighting an out-of-nowhere, nasty cold (of course I’d get sick when it’s 90 degrees in the Valley!), so this will be a slightly quicker run-through than usual. That said, we have four big releases this weekend (one of which looks amazing), and one smaller film that could be worth finding if you’re in the LA area (or New York). Let’s see what we have…


1. “Where the Wild Things Are” - I love everything I’ve seen from this film, and the many positive reviews are all the more encouraging. From director Spike Jonze and adapted from Maurice Sendak’s beloved children’s book, this is the story of the misbehaving Max, and his great journey to the land of the Wild Things. From what I hear, children will probably not embrace it (as much as they would something like, say, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs), but adults and kids-at-heart will eat it up, especially its mature themes of growing up and facing the world. I’m not quite sure if there’s enough story here for 90 minutes, but all of the released materials suggest something truly special (with a big emotional punch too). A very big must-see for me—I can’t wait to see how it’ll turn out.

2. “The Stepfather” - Quick confession: I obsessively watched the first 2 seasons of Gossip Girl (even as it started slipping in quality), and Stepfather star Penn Badgley was a consistent highlight (although the show’s true secret weapons are Leighton Meester and Ed Westwick, both of whom are destined for bigger, better things). I like Badgley; I just wish his first big movie was something I wanted to see more. This is a remake of an 80’s slasher (that starred LOST’s Terry O’ Quinn a.k.a. John Locke!), all about a seemingly perfect dad who turns out to be a serial killer. It looks like the original’s more outright horror elements were toned down, and now transformed into a more psychological, killer-in-your-neighborhood thriller like Disturbia. It might be a good premise, but the trailer and all the TV spots make it look like a generic horror/thriller remake in the vein of Prom Night, The Hitcher, and many others that open up around this time. And, frankly, Paranormal Activity (which opens wide this week) is dominating the pre-Halloween buzz—that looks like the best movie for some good, old-fashioned scares. Nip/Tuck’s Dylan Walsh plays the psycho Pop, and the gorgeous and talented Amber Heard (from Pineapple Express and next year’s Johnny Depp drama, The Rum Diary) gets stuck with the supportive girlfriend/eye candy role. It didn’t screen for critics (never a good sign), and the few reviews we have are quite negative. Maybe I’m wrong, and it’ll actually turn out entertaining…but I wouldn’t rush out to see this.

3. “Law Abiding Citizen” - I could see this being a guilty-pleasure sort of thriller—something like Taken or the first Transporter movie—not the highest quality, but some likable stars in a pretty entertaining ride. Supposedly, the story has some good twists in store, so here’s the basic premise: Gerard Butler’s family is murdered, and Jamie Foxx’s (crooked?) DA lets the killers off on too light a deal. But, in a turn of the tables, Butler turns out to be a criminal mastermind, and starts crafting his revenge in a series of perfectly-orchestrated kills, all while seemingly locked up in his cell. I love a good cat-and-mouse game, and Butler and Foxx, two smart actors (who often rise above the material they’re given), look like solid opponents—it’ll be interesting to watch them play off one another. I think I’ll check this one out in theaters; then again, the reviews are mostly negative (although my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, actually liked it), so take my recommendation (and my love of over-the-top action films) with a big grain of salt.

4. “New York, I Love You” - I highlighted the trailer to this one a while back, and it all just looks lovely. From the people who gave us Paris, Je t’aime, this short-film anthology focuses on love stories in the Big Apple, a city made for cinematic romances. Lots of talent (Bradley Cooper, Orlando Bloom, Shia LaBoeuf, Anton Yelchin, Robin Wright, Eli Wallach, Natalie Portman, and many more), and lots of interesting choices behind the camera (the contributing directors include Mira Nair, Allen Hughes, and Natalie Portman again, this time in her directing debut). It’s opening in both New York (naturally) and LA, so seek it out if you’re in the area—it looks like the kind of quiet, intelligent, beautifully-made film that’s well worth catching.

…and, finally, while, this one already came out a few weeks ago, Paranormal Activity is finally opening nationwide this weekend. Riding waves of positive buzz from its midnight screenings, this is gaining the reputation as one of the scariest films of all time. Could be—I’m looking forward to finally seeing this, especially closer to the end of the month. Also, it should be a great alternative to the awful Saw series, which looks like it will be around every Halloween now (really, they made six of them already?!)…

5. "Paranormal Activity" - This is actually one of the best-reviewed movies of the year—a tiny-budget, haunted-house movie that’s getting favorable comparisons to The Blair Witch Project and Cloverfield (it uses the similar device of the entire movie being “found footage”). The premise is simple: a couple keep having strange disturbances in their house, so the husband installs some hidden cameras…and creepy chaos ensues. I like moody horror films, those all about atmosphere, subtle scares, and believable characters much more than the gory, slasher kind. This could be something interesting—the cast is full of unknowns (which could help sell the “authenticity” of the premise), and the fake “true story” angle worked wonders for Blair Witch. It already has big fans like Steven Spielberg (whose creative suggestion to director Oren Peli resulted in a new ending), and it's poised to become an even bigger breakout hit if it catches on with more people, especially as we move closer to Halloween.

And that’s all we have for this weekend.

Wat do you guys think? Any one (or more) of these films catching your eye?

As for me, if I shake off this ridiculous flu, I want to check out almost every one of these new films, with Where the Wild Things Are being my most anticipated.

Images courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures, Screen Gems, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Overture Films, Vivendi Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, and Dreamworks SKG.
Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

News Bites: Could this be Mel Gibson's comeback?

- Posted by Rusty

Say what you will about Mel Gibson off-screen (and there’s a ton that could be said), he’s still one of my favorite on-screen players, and he does brink-of-madness intensity (ie, Ransom, Lethal Weapon) better than almost anyone. So, it’s a great kick to see him in this just-released trailer for Edge of Darkness (see it above). A new thriller from director Martin Campbell (The Mask of Zorro, Casino Royale with Daniel Craig), Gibson plays a father out to avenge his daughter’s murder, all the while uncovering the secrets of what might just be a widespread conspiracy. So, yeah, looks like a solid, twisty combo of Ransom and Taken, with Gibson back on the familiar, man-with-nothing-to-lose ground that first launched him to superstardom. I like this trailer—it looks like it’ll deliver plenty of plot shockers, and it’ll fit in nicely with the recent rush of gritty crime films like The Departed, Gone, Baby, Gone, and Liam Neeson’s Taken. Plus, it taps into that emotional pull of one father out for justice in the name of his child—if done right, this could be gripping storytelling. Director Campbell has a solid track-record with smart action films, so my hopes are high.

Could this put Gibson back on top, be his long-last cinematic comeback? Maybe. Either way, it’s good to see him back on the screen (he also has a comedy with Maverick co-star Jodie Foster out for next year). He might never gain back the public’s love, but he could certainly return to the top-notch acting turns that made me a fan to begin with. Catch Edge of Darkness in theaters on January 29, 2010.

Clip courtesy of Trailer Addict and Yahoo! Movies. [end of post]

Read more!

On The Bookshelf: Dan Brown's "The Lost Symbol"

- Posted by Rusty
What did I read? The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown


What did I think? In my first big English class in college, I had this amazing professor—bespectacled, Gandalf-y, and who walked around with such enthusiasm (delivered in that wise, aged British accent) for learning Middle-English, that you couldn’t help but get swept along. I think he said it best about Dan Brown: “High literature it’s not, but, damn it if I didn’t spend a whole day reading only him. As did my wife. And my son.”

My feelings exactly…

Dan Brown is not a great writer, and I don’t think his books stand up to re-readings...but the guy sure knows how to entertain and keep you reading. The Da Vinci Code was one of the most-read books of all time (I’m guessing in the same league as Harry Potter…and, um, The Bible) and it was a solid, impossible-to-put-down thriller. Tiny chapters, tons of suspense, twists at every turn, cool tidbits on history, and my personal favorite: ingenious little puzzles. Terrific fun to read...even if, once the excitement dies down, it becomes a book you shrug off more than one you’re passionate about.

In my view, Angels & Demons is actually his best book. It has all the best elements of The Da Vinci Code, but it reads like a better adventure; plus, I thought the villain’s identity was a genuine surprise, and his motivation far more interesting than other Brown baddies (including his current one). I don’t care as much for his big hero, Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon, as, say, Hogwarts wizards and Michael Crichton’s dinosaur “chaoticians”; still, Langdon’s a dependable, familiar lead, and I’ll gladly follow any of his secret society-infused, puzzle-filled adventures.

And, well, I can safely that his Da Vinci Code sequel, The Lost Symbol, is a good two-thirds vintage Dan Brown: the twists are there, there are some fun new things that only Langdon could decipher, and the novel starts on the perfect footing. Unfortunately, it’s that last third that brings everything down. That’s when the book gets hampered down by some disappointing choices, complete with a twist you could see coming from miles away (and I’m never one to really figure these things out) and a cheesy, overwritten epilogue (not to mention an anticlimactic final reveal—you know, just that hyped-up, Holy Grail-like object everyone in this book was looking for).

The set-up really is excellent: Robert Langdon is called to Washignton DC as a favor to his old friend and mentor, Peter Solomon. Turns out, Peter has actually been kidnapped, and Langdon finds himself at the mercy of a man named Mal’akh, one who is determined that Langdon find a hidden object at the heart of Washington DC (Langdon is fast becoming like a male version of Angela Lansbury in Murder, She Wrote—any time he enters some historically rich city, rest assured that someone will die, and there'll be an ancient-puzzle-wielding psychopath behind it). The Suspicious Secret Society this time around are the Freemasons (also mentioned in The Da Vinci Code…and, well, National Treasure...but I think Brown will hate that comparison), and one of their core beliefs is called into question as Langdon races to save Peter before Mal’akh could put his plan into action.

Brown deserves credit for finally giving Langdon some character details—here, Langdon struggles against his own skepticism and unwillingness to “believe,” and, really, just tries his best to save the man who means so much to him. In the previous novels, Langdon didn’t really have a connection to the crazy events around him—giving him something personal to latch onto gives the novel an emotional push that I thought the others were missing. Plus (and maybe I’m the only one really happy about this), kudos to Brown for finally giving Langdon an age-appropriate, believable love interest. It would have been really hard to accept another impossibly gorgeous particle physicist (or, for that matter, a French cryptographer) who’s instantly attracted to Langdon; Peter Solomon’s sister, Katherine, a Noetic scientist and someone who holds a special connection to the plot, feels like a much more natural match.

There’s also a nice running theme about learning to see things from a different perspective; the book doesn’t get bogged down in big ideas, but this was a nice touch. One's perception of things could change dramatically if they approach it in a different manner, essentially seeing it in its best light—I think it’s true in everyday life, and Brown uses that idea in pretty clever ways, especially with regards to the book’s major puzzles.

Sadly, though, the novel falls apart as we head toward the end. I remember this was actually supposed to hit shelves three years ago (under the much-better title of The Solomon Key), but was suddenly delayed. While I’ve never been under the kind of pressure Brown was (it must be insanely hard to top one’s own phenomenon), I have a sneaky feeling that he had trouble resolving his messy plotline. He’s got too many characters here, way too many secrets to juggle, and I think he struggled with how to best get his characters to the climactic site and make it feel like a natural part of the story. And that’s when the novel resorts to moronic decisions by the CIA (really, once you read it, you’ll be amazed too…especially since the CIA director did nothing but yell at Langdon early in the book for his poor decision-making) and major pacing lags as Brown tries to cram too much information before and after the climax (most notably with Mal’akh, for it seems Brown realized late in the game that we still don’t know what he actually wants).

Worst of all, perhaps, is that Brown failed to give the story an air of danger, with something real and palpable at stake. In The Da Vinci Code, it was the nature of Christianity; in Angels & Demons, it was a time-bomb in Vatican City—both are good, game-changing threats, ones where you understand the significance if Langdon fails. Here (and maybe it’s just me), it’s really hard to sympathize with the “national security” matter that the CIA informs us of. We get that requisite moment—the CIA director shows Langdon something secret (carefully hidden from the reader up until that point), Langdon gasps in horror, and we, as the audience, are supposed to finally click with an understanding of just how crucial their mission is. Too bad it didn’t feel like anything that dangerous; I could be wrong here, but the consequences seemed to be a lot less dire than everyone in the book complained about. It’s hard to believe that this one piece of information would cause such fuss and hysteria…let alone the anarchy that Langdon very seriously warns us about.

All of these weaknesses would be a lot easier to stomach if the characters and the emotions of the story were actually worthwhile. Although Langdon gets a bit more to do this time around, it’s not enough to distract us from the one-note group of people surrounding him, including the tattooed, philosophical villain who gets resolved in whimper of a final twist. Brown is certainly talented (his ability to hold a reader’s interest deserves a lot of respect); I just wish he’d learn to give us actual people to root for, as opposed to walking, talking information-sources. Michael Crichton was my favorite popular writer growing up, and Brown could really learn a thing or two from him. Crichton’s novels had the same basic formula: smart people caught up in historical/technological conspiracies…but something like Timeline (my pick for his best book after Sphere) has more depth to it—more character, more heart, and a much more lasting imprint. Brown has a gift for tightly-reined suspense, visual puzzles, and some tempting historical mysteries, and I know he has good, entertaining books left in him. This one is just not it.

Would I recommend it? Yes and no…although I’m leaning towards “no” the more I think about the book.

You do get some great twists and suspense scenes, you learn tons of cool factoids about the Masons and Washington DC (something I knew pretty little about—Brown is always good for some nice facts to store away about art, architecture, and history)…but, past the halfway mark, it becomes a truly frustrating read. Characters make stupid choices, and I think a lot of readers will be disappointed by Brown’s ending and biggest revelations (not to mention their surprising corniness).

You won’t be angry you picked this up—it’ll be a fast read, and you’ll probably enjoy it for at least a good majority. But this can’t hold a handle to the equally compulsively-readable Harry Potter, or even Brown’s own earlier Langdon novels. At best, this is a missed opportunity; Brown has a good formula (even if it’s wearing a bit thin), and I’m hoping the so-so critical reception of this one will spark those creative juices of his to give us a far better follow-up novel.

I know, it’s incredibly easy to criticize—let’s see me try and write one of these novels. The fact remains that Brown is an enormous success, and he’s far more adept at crafting these kinds of addicting reads than I ever could be. But he could do better. And, for a smart guy (and an English professor!), he has to know it.

Would it make a good movie? Maybe...but it would depend on the filmmakers taking a few liberties with the source material. I’m not a fan of the Dan Brown adaptations to begin with (more on that in a bit), but you could clearly see when reading the other two books how they could make great films. Both Angels & Demons and The Da Vinci Code had breakneck pacing and pretty much non-stop thrills—excellent recipes for the book-to-film jump. They also had pretty solid plotlines—sure, not much character and tons of logic gaps, but both stories ran smoothly and led to an appropriate conclusion. The Lost Symbol, on the other hand, starts in that Brown-perfected, thrill-a-minute manner, but then gives way to a ludicrous (and very talky) final act. It will be hard to take seriously, and, well, it will also be hard to ignore that National Treasure took place in DC too, and (although very, very few agree with me) gave us similar story beats with much more panache…and with a great deal more fun too.

I think the key will be Langdon’s relationship with Peter Solomon—the book gives us glimpses into their decades-long friendship, and the film could expand on that—make us feel the personal mission Langdon needs to accomplish, and giving the movie a much-needed dose of character in the process.

For everything else, I think some chunks of the book would have to be rewritten; the premise and puzzles could stay the same, but the messy final chapters and a good deal of the Mal’akh material should probably be toned down...or revamped with some creative additions. In my eyes, the best solution would be to use the novel as a base point. Hire a talented writer (like Angels & Demons script-polisher and Spielberg-favorite, David Koepp) and give them some creative license. The novel has a lot of problems, but it has the undeniable backbone of a good thriller; perhaps some fresh eyes and new ideas could do the story a world of good.

With that, this could be a golden opportunity to actually make a strong Robert Langdon movie. Take the basics from the novel, but then start from scratch with the other elements. You’ll still have the chases and the ancient artifacts and the Masons, but now the filmmakers could finally give Tom Hanks and co. something meaningful to do. Some innovation and a break from the source material might be just what this franchise needs—just look what it did for Jason Bourne (which bears little resemblance to their original novels, other than title and set-up)!


Is it a movie? Not yet…but you can bet we’ll see one in the next few years. From what I know, Sony Pictures had an early copy of the manuscript, and they already set their writers off to work on a script. Both director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks are set to return in what will most likely be the final hurrah for this series.

Honestly, I think the Dan Brown movies before went with the wrong approach; my biggest problem with the Da Vince Code and Angels & Demons movies is that they took the source material so seriously. Yes, the novels have a historical bend to them…but they’re not high-minded literature. It’s amazing that two of the most readable novels turned into movies that were borderline boring at times (although Angels & Demons was a big improvement over the first). By being so reverent to the material, the movies lost the pulpy fun of the original books. What happened to the excitement of solving the puzzles? The edge-of-your-seat chases? That breathless energy? The books are brainy entertainment at best; why try to make the films Important, complete with deep discussions of faith and religion?

In my eyes, National Treasure (itself an heir of Indiana Jones) is the best take on such material. Say what you will about those movies—yes, they’re often corny, convoluted (how is finding a city of gold meant to clear Nicolas Cage’s family name in the Lincoln assassination??), and groan-inducing…but you can’t deny they produce a rousing time at the movies. These films embraced the ridiculousness of the material, while never losing that infectious spirit of discovering historical secrets. They don’t expect us to take them too seriously (case in point: the invisible treasure map on the Declaration of Independence!), and the characters are developed enough that we’ll follow them for the ride anyway. And, really, I think I’m not alone in that I’d rather spend time with Nicolas Cage’s colorful group of treasure hunters instead of Tom Hanks’ pensive intellectual. (Even Indiana Jones had religion-based storylines, and it still managed to be smart and heartfelt entertainment…while never losing the pure joy and excitement the series was supposed to deliver.)

If The Lost Symbol becomes a movie (and it most surely will), this could be the chance to finally energize this franchise. Re-write some of Brown’s novel and make it a personal journey for Robert Langdon. Let him actually enjoy the process of cracking some centuries-old codes. Director Ron Howard (who did the last two films) is a smart, capable filmmaker and Tom Hanks is one of our very best actors—that combination has to produce something good for us in the long run.


Here’s hoping this coming adaptation could break apart for the others. The potential is there, and maybe it will take the weakest book in the series to make the filmmakers realize it. After all, Indiana Jones and Nicolas Cage can’t dominate the historical-artifacts field forever… Here’s your chance, Professor Langdon—step up and give us an adventure worth caring about!

And, as always, here are some fun facts before we go…

Fun Fact 1: Ralph Fiennes, Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, George Clooney, and Bill Paxton were all considered for the role of Robert Langdon before Ron Howard ultimately chose Tom Hanks. All fine actors, to be sure, but my personal pick of the bunch would be Hugh Jackman (even if he’s a decade too young for the role)—he has just the right amount of charisma and smarts, and would have easily pulled off an academic who’s quick on his feet.

Actually, the best choice (and Dan Brown even hinted to this in the novel) would have been a Harrison Ford in his 50’s. Oh, well, guess Ford will just have to fall back on another treasure-hunting character...

Fun Fact 2: Alfred Molina, another very good actor (Doc Ock in Spider Man 2, the Count in Chocolat) played Bishop Aringarosa in The Da Vinci Code. I have trouble remembering what his character did in the novel, but (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) it was all mainly a distraction from the true villain’s identity. In fact, Aringarosa is Italian for “red herring,” a popular term in mystery novels/movies for those suspicious characters meant to take the reader’s attention away from the story’s big secrets.

For an extra bit of coolness, Molina did the voiceover for the Angels & Demons teaser (see it below—it’s actually an excellent trailer) in a distinctly American voice. And, for those who watched the film, he does the opening narration as well, but this time in his native British accent.

Angels & Demons Trailer:

The Da Vinci Code Trailer:

--And that’s it for another “On the Bookshelf”. Thanks for sticking with me, guys; this is by far my favorite column to do, so I’m going to try to be much more consistent about it. And now I turn the floor to you. Did anyone read The Lost Symbol? Do you disagree with my take on it? (Luke and I are actually at odds on this one—he really liked it, while, as you can see, it drove me crazy when the book started falling off its rails). And how do you feel about the Tom Hanks adaptations?

For my next column, to complete my Up-inspired obsession with old adventure novels (something I really should have embraced as a kid), I’ll finally do the original 1912 The Lost World by Sherlock Holmes mastermind, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, followed by Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island (inspired by watching Treasure Planet with my friend—man, I need to stop watching cartoon adaptations…). Then, if all goes well (and I keep reading instead of procrastinating and discovering new TV shows), I’ll have Inkheart, The Lovely Bones, F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Tender is the Night, and Austen’s Sense & Sensibility for you. And, even though I read it before, I’m really tempted to flip through my just-rediscovered copy of Timeline, one of my favorite modern thrillers (itself a really nice update of the classic adventure story), so maybe I’ll squeeze that in between.

Lots of good books await—see you next time!

Images courtesy of Doubleday Books and Sony Pictures.
Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

News Bites: “Toy Story 3” Trailer!

- Posted by Rusty

I won’t waste time babbling on this one. Just check out the brand-new Toy Story 3 trailer above—it’s wonderful. Pixar is becoming (if it’s not already) the only sure thing in Hollywood, and if anyone can make a perfect trilogy of films to rival Lord of the Rings, it’s these guys.

This is a great tease—it’s tiny, and we only get a tempting, bare-bones view of the plot. We learn that Andy, the little boy from the first two films, is now all grown-up and leaving for college, and so his mom donates Woody and the gang to the worst place imaginable—an absolute hell for our favorite toys—preschool! The laughs are plenty in this little clip, especially that final gag...but it still doesn’t forget that emotional punch that made the series so great. Look at that shot of Woody, alone in Andy’s room, unwanted and probably unplayed with for years. Pixar’s not afraid to dig deeper, and, after Up, I can’t wait to see what they do here. Toy Story 3 hits theaters June 18, 2010—next summer can’t come soon enough!

What do you guys think of the Toy Story 3 trailer? Excited to see the final product? There’s probably going to be a longer trailer closer to the film’s release, but, for now, I think this is a fantastic taste of what we could expect come next June.

P.S. If anyone’s interested, the Toy Story 3D Double Feature that’s currently in theaters has just been extended. So, if you missed it, now’s your chance to catch two of the very best animated films in a cool two-for-one deal.

Trailers courtesy of Trailer Addict. [end of post] Read more!

What's on the Menu: October 9 - 11

- Posted by Rusty

All in all, it looks like ho-hum weekend compared to the last one. There’s one big release (which doesn’t look amazing), but some of the new, smaller films sound like good alternatives. Let’s dig in and see what we have…


1. “Couples Retreat” - Something about this is just not clicking with me. I love this cast (including Vince Vaughn, Jon Favreau, Jason Bateman, Kristen Bell, and the great Frenchman Jean Reno), and I’m always up for seeing the Swingers reunion team of Favreau and Vaughn…but I have a feeling this will be somewhat of a disappointment. This one follows four couples as they head to a Bora Bora resort for a special “retreat”. Turns out, instead of a nice, relaxing vacation, the weekend transforms into intense couples-counseling sessions from Jean Reno’s bizarre zen-master (with such tactics as the “Cirlce of Life” swimming-with-sharks exercise). It’s a funny premise, and the trailer (which you can see below) is good for a few laughs; still, the mostly negative reviews don’t help, and all of the ads and TV spots feature pretty much the exact same scenes and jokes. Could still be entertaining—there’s a lot of funny people here (including John Michael Higgins, who was hilarious in Community last week, and stole his scenes as the gay brother in The Break-Up), and Vaughn and Favreau, two of the best improvisers in the business, are magic whenever put together (the duo also co-wrote this script). I do plan on catching this…but I think I could wait for the DVD.

2. “An Education” - Opening in very limited release, this one’s riding a wave of buzz from the festival circuit, especially for the star-making performance of Carey Mulligan. From a script by Nick Hornby (whose works gave us the insightful About a Boy and High Fidelity), this is basically a coming-of-age story of one 16-year-old in 1960’s London. With big dreams and aspirations, she’s fortunate to meet a much older, very charismatic man (Peter Sarsgaard), and that fateful meeting takes her on a journey, supposedly one with lots of heart-tugging emotion and humor. Hornby’s a gifted writer; even though most of his works tend to deal with guys (and, boy, does he get how dudes think), all of his characters come across as layered, relatable people…and High Fidelity is one of my favorite movies about growing up (even though its lead character is in his 30’s). The universally positive reviews make it sound like it’s well worth seeing (or hunting down until it releases wider), and it really does look like a charming film. It’s also populated by some great supporting players, including the amazing Emma Thompson and Alfred Molina, and leading lady Mulligan is receiving tons of Oscar talk for her performance. Could be some great, quality entertainment—I might not rush out to see it this weekend, but I’ll definitely catch it in the next few weeks.

3. “Trucker” - Like An Education, this is another tiny, limited release, and one that’s also getting raves for its leading lady. Trucker traces the story of one careless big-rig driver, and how she turns her life around to deal with her abandoned 11-year-old son. Lead actress Michelle Monaghan has been good in a lot of things, from supporting-wife/girlfriend roles in Mission: Impossible III and Made of Honor to strong character turns in the likes of the great (and criminally underseen) Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang with Robert Downey Jr. She’s due for her chance to shine, and this sounds like it could very well be that movie. Her performance is also getting its share of Oscar buzz and this film could be worth seeing just for that. The supporting cast is excellent as well, featuring Nathan Fillion (from one of the best TV shows of all time—Firefly! Great to see you, Captain Mal!) and Benjamin Bratt. It probably won’t make much of a dent in the box-office, but it sounds like a smart and powerful little film, especially if you’re in the mood for a low-key, emotional drama.

4. “Good Hair” - I didn’t know about this film until last week, and, while it doesn’t look groundbreaking, it could turn out to be some pleasant, light-hearted entertainment. Starring and produced by Chris Rock, this is a documentary exploring African-American hairstyles (seriously). The topic sounds frivolous, but Rock’s got a good eye for smart humor (with a dash of social commentary), and the whole thing sounds breezy and enjoyable. Not must-see for me, but a nice alternative to consider.

And that’s all we have for this weekend. It’s not as exciting as last week, but I think there’s some good, solid choices here.

So, what about you guys? Are you tempted to watch any of these (either this weekend or sometime in the future)? Out of all of these, I most want to catch An Education, which, judging by the ecstatic reviews all around, sounds like a real winner.

For this weekend, though, my top priority is catching the Toy Story 3-D Double Feature. Just a quick reminder: for anyone interested, this is the last week you’ll be able to see that—the limited run of two of Pixar’s best movies ends this Sunday!

Images courtesy of Universal Pictures, BBC Films, Sony Pitures Classics, Plum Pictures, HBO Films, and Roadside Attractions.

Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

Food 4 Thought: Do we need a "Venom" movie??

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Hollywood Reporter Heat Vision Blog
(Found via Comingsoon.net)

Remember Topher Grace’s Venom in Spider Man 3? Better yet, just remember Spider-Man 3? What a huge misstep that film was, especially following the actually pretty great Spider-Man 2. The emo-Peter Parker (that’d be his “dark” alter-ego), the extra-whiny Mary Jane (poor, poor Kirsten Dunst…who, at one point, got mad that Peter went off to save people instead of staying and discussing her bad review), the overall pretty useless Sandman, and the list goes on and on.

But I thought the biggest misstep of all was its treatment of Venom...

A fan favorite for years, Venom dominated the 90’s Spider-Man cartoon series (my big intro to the Marvel universe)—he was the villain on that show. And you could see why: as Eddie Brock, a jealous co-worker transformed by an alien symbiote suit, he was everything that Peter was not—just as powerful (if not more so), but ruthless and unmerciful. A beast driven purely on vengeance, and one who utterly destroys the “with great power, comes great responsibility” mantra of Peter’s Uncle Ben.

So, how could the film mess him up so badly? How did it manage to turn one of the most compulsively watchable (and pretty damn interesting) baddies in Spider-Man’s library into a second banana villain? I read somewhere that Sam Raimi was forced to include him by Sony…and it shows—he’s a blip in that movie’s messy story. The storyline (with its themes of revenge and the darkness in all of us) could have worked if he was the primary bad guy, but, since Sandman took that slot, Venom ended up being the guy who just happened to wait in one convenient street corner, snarl a few times, and say: “Hey, we both want Spider-Man dead. Let’s kill him together!” A real wasted opportunity; although, to his credit, Topher Grace did a better job than expected. I like Grace a lot (see his work in Traffic, In Good Company, and That 70’s Show to see the range of what this guy could do), and while he wasn’t the beefy Eddie Brock from the comics, I liked his version as the scrawny weasel.

Think Sony could reignite that potential with the just-announced, now-moving-forward Venom spin-off? I’m guessing not…but I am interested in what they’ll come up with. I heard rumors about this for a couple of years now; now, news broke that Seabiscuit, Dave, and Pleasantville writer-director Gary Ross is bringing our favorite angry alien symbiote to life.

I think it’s a case of good and bad news. Yes, this could be the chance to do the character justice, and Ross is a dependably good writer who’s more than up to the task (he’s polishing the Spider-Man 4 script too). His involvement also gives the project some credibility, making it look less like a cash-in on a popular brand (and, come on, have you seen the amount of Venom logo T-shirts?? Ah, one of these days I'll finally buy it and wear my geek flag proudly...). It’s also a chance to reboot—start from scratch, and give us the Venom that’s not just some petty little punk obsessed with Peter Parker’s lab partner (who actually convinced himself that they were a “couple” after one cup of coffee).


Now here’s the bad: it’s his own movie, which probably means, minus all traces of Spider-Man (save for maybe a cameo by Tobey Maguire), Venom would become the hero of his own story. He is a tragic hero, and, for anyone who remembers, the 90’s cartoon even had an arc when he used his powers for good to save the woman he loves. I’m guessing we’ll see something similar here: he’ll be evil at first, but (most likely after hurting someone he cares about) he’ll learn to fight the evil alien brain (the costume is actually a living organism), and turn those powers against an even bigger bad guy. Voila, a new franchise is born—another dark, broody hero to fit nicely into the post-Dark Knight superhero mold. And once all the groundwork is laid, who says he can’t team up (or face off against) Spider-Man sometime in the future? Will this Venom be played by Topher Grace? Probably not—the beauty of the alien symbiote is that it can attach to anyone, and maybe Sony won’t even go with Eddie Brock for this go-around.

I’m not crazy about this idea; I’m not even sure if we need a Venom spin-off altogether, since there are better comic-book characters out here who still don’t have their own movie. And the 15 minutes of him in Spider-Man 3 didn’t exactly scream like there was a fascinating, untold story for a full-length movie; did anybody really come out of the theater and say: “Man, I'd love to spend more time with Topher…”?. Mostly, I would have rather seen Venom as the main villain in a Spider-Man movie. (Ever wish studios could just ignore a movie in a franchise and re-do it with the same team? I would totally forgive 20th Century Fox if they pretended X-Men 3 didn’t happen, and just made that movie over again). I keep thinking that Sony just messed up their chance, and this will turn into another expensive, pointless ride.

As always, we’ll just have to see. I respect Gary Ross a lot (Dave is a favorite of my family), and I certainly love the Venom character—there is a ton more they could do with him. Let’s see if they could put together something interesting here. Even better, let’s hope they redeem the Spider-Man franchise in whole—I’m sure a lot is riding on Spider-Man 4 to get Peter Parker’s world back on track, and I hope Sam Raimi recharged those creative juices with Drag Me to Hell (which I’m looking forward to finally catching on DVD).

I know I’ll see both that and Venom anyway—let’s just hope they’re both good.

What do you guys think of the Venom movie news? And who would you like to see Spider-Man take on in Spider-Man 4?

My pick would be Carnage—if you thought Venom was bad, wait until you see this guy. At least somewhere deep down, beneath all that alien slime, Brock has a heart; Cassidy, the serial killer who inherits another symbiote, is all-out, unhinged madness. With no humanity whatsoever, this guy just wants blood—he thrives on killing, making him more powerful and uncontrollable than Venom could ever be. He'd be an amazing match for Spidey (and the effects to bring him to life should be fantastic)—check him out in the picture below (he's the red, splotchy one on the left)—he definitely has potential as a big-screen villain.


Images courtesy of Marvel Comics, Marvel Entertainment, and Sony Pictures.
Read more!