On The Bookshelf: "The Picture of Dorian Gray"

- Posted by Rusty
I've been wanting to launch this column for a while now. From the beginning, I didn’t want this to turn into a just “movie” blog—which, I know, sounds ridiculous since I’m crazy about movies (with pages and pages of written geekiness to prove it). Yeah, I will always be the dude who’ll prefer a good movie with some good friends over any party, but my love of a terrific story would be much too limited if I just stuck to the screen. And here's a terribly embarrassing example to prove that: do you guys remember that movie (and wonderful children's book), “The Pagemaster?” Where Macaulay Culkin gets animated and travels to the World of Books, with his talking-novel pals, Adventure, Horror, and the sassy, Whoopi-Goldberg-voiced Fairy Tale? It doesn’t hold up extremely well, but, if you guys will forgive a quick jump to uber-cheesiness, that’s pretty much how I look at books and reading now. Every new story could be some new adventure, and there are infinite worlds, people, and events just waiting to be pored over and explored (which also explains my massively increasing books-to-read pile).

I actually embraced reading pretty late in the game, around late Junior High probably, but it’s a huge part of me now (and I can thank a certain boy wizard for that welcome change). And that kind of became my idea for “On the Bookshelf.” These columns will give you glimpses into what we’re reading, how we liked it, if we’d recommend it, and whether or not that book could (or already does) make a decent movie. Hopefully, we can do one of these every two weeks or so, tossing out some potentially good book recommendations along the way. And, so, let’s open this up with the great Oscar Wilde.

What did I read? “The Picture of Dorian Gray” by Oscar Wilde.


What did I think? I originally bought this book in, well, 7th grade, convinced that I was a “mature” enough reader to give it a shot. Well, it only took me 9 years to figure out how extremely stupid I was back then. On the flipside, I'm glad I waited until now - it would have been too dense and complicated for me back then, and while I didn't think it was perfect and have mixed feelings about the novel, I greatly enjoyed this rather dark trip into Wilde's imagination.

I haven’t actually read too much Wilde (something that must be remedied very soon!), but I loved “The Importance of Being Earnest” when I read it in college, especially Wilde’s delectable wordplay and wit. He didn’t seem to care so much about plot, but rather how his characters spoke and interacted, how absurd their situations became the more they talked themselves into a hole.

With that, I dug into “Dorian Gray” with tons of enthusiasm—finally, I’d tackle one of Wilde’s most definitive works. I’d get some Gothic imagery, some wicked dialogue, and, really, catch up on a classic I should’ve read years ago.


And then I walked out of it not so much with excitement, but more calm appreciation. In all fairness, this is a good story, with a fantastic premise and, as expected, killer dialogue (really, the entire book could be a massive series of epigrams, all witty bits of truth pronounced by one of the main characters, Lord Henry Wotton). In the novel, the gorgeous young Dorian Gray, after befriending the alluring (and very Wilde-like) Lord Henry, finds himself in the bizarre, supernatural trade-off where a portrait of him ages, while he stays eternally young. But the portrait goes further than simply showing age marks and rotting away with the passing years—for every sin Dorian commits, every crime, particularly as he falls prey to living a life devoted purely to the “senses,” the portrait displays that as well, destroying that beautiful (painted) face of his, and acting as the only semblance of Dorian’s true, corrupt, and deeply hideous nature.

Sounds pretty cool, right? And, by all means, it is—it’s got a phenomenal beginning, in which Dorian is just an innocent, inexperienced young thing, and the transformation that takes place is quite gripping to read. However, I kept getting the feeling that this is an amazing short story that was stretched out to novel length (turns out, I wasn't far off, but more on that later). In fact, there were full chapters devoted to nothing but Dorian’s extravagance—intriguing, sure, but I’m not convinced that they were entirely necessary. I adore supporting details, when an author is free to flesh out his world and his characters, but “Dorian Gray” had far too many instances when the story halted, just so Wilde could (quite nicely, to be fair) add some lengthy, wordy flourishes.

Still, as I said, the set-up is brilliant, Dorian’s journey is very well-plotted, and the ending is pitch-perfect—a superb, twisted image to end a pretty imaginative morality tale. There are great running themes in this, including the more overt ones like society’s obsessions with youth and beauty over things of actual substance (something we could especially relate to in today’s media-saturated world) to more nuanced explorations of art and its power. I genuinely believe that a great story, a lovely piece of music, an amazing painting - they all have the power to change someone’s life — to make them better, more genuine, knowledgeable people. Then again, it's all about how you interpret each work of art, what you as an individual take away from the entire reading (or watching, listening, etc) experience. I won’t spoil too much, but “Dorian Gray” plays with this notion in very interesting ways — Dorian’s failure to properly read his own (freakishly mutating) portrait, as well as the consequences of that action, are some of the book’s strongest moments.

Despite all fantasy or horror elements, this really is a universally relatable story—a captivating, kind-of-freaky “what if?” scenario to many of our most selfish, hidden desires. It’s never outright moralizing, but the story’s a good warning for absolute excess, especially at the expense of living a full life and making heartfelt connections with others. True, it didn’t blow me away as much as I hoped, but I appreciated the beauty of its telling, even if I thought the story would have a lot more power in a leaner, more direct package. Interestingly enough, “The Picture of Dorian Gray” was originally a short story (with its homosexual undertones-which are still very present-much more pronounced), but Wilde himself expanded it, and toned down the more “inappropriate” subtext. In my view, I don’t think this was for the best, but I’m glad we got a version of this story anyway.

Would I Recommend It? I know, who am I to criticize Oscar Wilde? He's a better writer than I could ever dream of being (his reject stories would be like an aspiration for me!). But, while I’m happy I read this, I think I was a victim of my own expectations. It’s a very well-written story, with many memorable images, and it's just brimming with great ideas you can pick apart…but I honestly expected a little better. I don't mind long stories as long as it feels justified; Wilde's a tremendous writer, but, here, the length felt padded, and it unfortunately distracted from the real emotional pull of the story. So take this as a cautious recommendation—I don’t think anyone will be sorry they read this, but considering how highly this is regarded, you might be a bit underwhelmed too.

Would it Make a Good Movie? This one’s a no-brainer—its ageless hero, those Gothic overtones, the subtle psychological mind-games between Dorian and Lord Henry Wotton, that supernatural tinge to the entire ordeal—it would be fantastic on the big screen! However, and here’s the big caveat: minus a few big set pieces, and taking away all of Wilde’s narration and exploration of Dorian’s corruptible soul, not much actually goes on in the book. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a good number of events taking place, but it couldn’t take up more than an hour of screen time at best. With that, it’ll be up to the filmmakers to fill in the details, perhaps enhance the premise with their own interpretations, or punch up elements of the story that Wilde left on the sidelines.


Is it a Movie? Even better question. Checking IMDb, there were roughly 16 versions of “The Picture of Dorian Gray” made throughout the years, seemingly from every possible movie-making country. I honestly haven’t seen any of them, but I suspect more than one would be worth your time, particularly the 1945 version on the right, co-starring Angela Lansbury.

For a nice surprise, we’re actually in for a new take next year (simply titled “Dorian Gray”), a British production starring Colin Firth (the forever Mr. Darcy), Rebecca Hall (Vicky in Woody Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and Christian Bale’s wife in “The Prestige”), and Ben Barnes (“Narnia’s” Prince Caspian) as Dorian. This version promises to amp up the horror elements of the story, as well as offer a better focus on Dorian’s dwindling humanity and his Faustian-like relationship with Lord Henry. Catch the trailer below...

I might be wrong, but the preview suggests exactly what this story needs—not a slavish adaptation, but an expansion of Wilde’s world and ideas. There’s some new characters added—most notably Rebecca Hall, who I’m going to guess plays Wotton’s daughter—and it looks like the filmmakers want to flesh out Dorian as well, to see the good man struggling with the monster he’s becoming. Very interesting. England’s getting it before us (much like they did with “Hot Fuzz”—lucky Brit bastards!), but we should see this stateside sometime early next year.

And, to close this off, here are some fun facts…

Fun Fact 1: For those who saw “(500) Days of Summer,” this was the book Summer was reading before a major event in the movie.

Fun Fact 2: Dorian Gray was also a member of “The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen,” the pretty awful Sean Connery movie. After watching that, I’m still trying to figure out if the screenwriters actually read this book before inserting him into the team. This version of Dorian (played by Stuart Townsend) was apparently semi-immortal, and, for an even more interesting detail, he was not allowed to look at his own portrait….OR HE WOULD DIE! (I could see the screenwriter delivering that with enthusiasm, like it’s the most brilliant idea ever—“Don’t you get it?! He’s beautiful and bullet-proof, but he dies when he looks at himself! It’s symbolism!”) Yeah, somehow I doubt they read all of the story…



Plus, judging by that movie, maybe Dorian Gray just shouldn’t be an action hero? The way I pictured him, he’d be a bit like Derek Zoolander in a gun fight—a little too dainty to risk hurting those handsome features against some unknown, unkempt, ugly bad guy.

—Hope you guys enjoyed this. I'll try to have a few more of these ready for you soon (including one for my book right now, the delightful and very funny "Pygmalion"), and the other guys will pitch in with books of their own whenever they can.

Images courtesy of Barnes & Noble Classics, ingilizcenet.com, MGM, Ealing Studios, Fragile Films, Momentum Pictures, and 20th Century Fox.

Trailer courtesy of TrailerAddict.
Read more!

Top 10 Romantic Comedies: Take Two

- Posted by Rusty

I know this looks like I’m stealing Luke’s thunder from last Thursday, but, from the outset, we wanted to do two separate lists on our Top 10 Romantic Comedies (since we’re dudes who love rom-coms way too much), and then see how they stack up (check out Luke's list here). Before I start, I should mention that these are more my favorite romantic comedies, as opposed to a list of the "best" in the genre - some are genuine classics, some I just love despite all their flaws, but all of these are ones I rewatch from year to year. Feel free to offer up your own choices for the ones Luke and I might have passed by, and let us know how our picks match (or completely go against) your own. It should make for some fun discussion!

And, with that, here are my picks...

1. When Harry Met Sally (1989) - I'm with Luke 100% on this. Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan are magic together, and have the kind of spark you rarely see in movies. An amazing, insightful, endlessly quotable film that, for my money, best showcases two people falling in love.

2. Love Actually (2003) – 8 interweaving love stories, all wonderful (my personal favorites are Bill Nighy’s rock-star “epiphany,” and Liam Neeson’s stepson’s first love). I could watch this all the time too...but it’s even better during Christmas!

3. Pride & Prejudice (2005) – Okay, this is a bit of a cheat since it’s not a standard romantic comedy, but it’s one of the most romantic things I’ve ever seen...and it’s pretty funny at times (plus, it’s a killer adaptation of one of my favorite books, so I have to squeeze it in). Keira Knightley shines in this (and deserved that Oscar nomination), and Matthew McFadyen might never live down his Mr. Darcy. As much as I love the BBC mini-series, this is hands-down my favorite version of this story.

4. Four Weddings and a Funeral (1994) – One of Hugh Grant’s best films, and the one that first made him a star (it’s also from the same people who gave us “Love Actually” and “Notting Hill”). The writing is sharp and moving, and the performances are all perfect (particularly Kristen Scott Thomas as the sardonic, but heartbroken best friend, and John Hannah as a gay man dealing with a sudden tragedy). It just gets better the more you watch it.

5. Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) – My pick for the best movie from the Judd Apatow camp. Star Jason Segel’s script is smart and downright hilarious at times, and, on top of all of that, seems to come from a very real place. (This and “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” are really two of the best films about getting over break-ups.) Lots of laughs, lots of heart, and great performances all around (especially Segel, Mila Kunis, and the scene-stealing Russell Brand).

6. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986) – Easily one of Woody Allen’s (that master of clever dialogue and relatable human situations) finest films. Tracing the stories of Hannah (Mia Farrow) and her extended family, it’s funny at times (Woody Allen’s courtship and disastrous first date with Dianne Wiest) and painfully real at others (Michael Caine’s storyline) - this is really a must-see. Only Woody Allen can capture so much life in less than two hours.

7. Wimbledon (2004) – This is not a great film...but, man, is it charming and rewatchable. It also combines two of my favorite things: the great Paul Bettany (so good as Geoffrey Chaucer, the "herald", in “A Knight’s Tale”) in his first real leading role, and tennis (in fact, some of the very best ever put on film). Bettany’s terrific here as an underdog player (in a role that might have been far less interesting with a different actor), and Dunst shows that she can be pretty lovely when she’s not forced to whine through an entire “Spider-Man” film. A cute romance, an even better acting showcase, and some excellent tennis sequences—my DVD player is much too familiar with this one.

8. How to Steal a Million (1966) – An oldie, but very much a goodie. Case in point: screen goddess Audrey Hepburn at her most luminous, Peter O’Toole (one of the very best actors alive) in a sprightly, very funny performance, an adorable romance, and a very clever heist to boot. Check this one out—it’s a delight from start to finish.

9. The Princess Bride (1987) – This one’s just full of imagination and memorable laughs. It looks like a standard swashbuckler from the outside, but William Goldman’s script (adapted from his own novel) is clever and consistently enjoyable to watch. Filled with iconic supporting work from Mandy Patinkin (who owns one of the best movie lines ever: “Hello, my name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”), Billy Crystal, and the late Andre the Giant, and all anchored by the great romance between Cary Elwes and the beautiful Robin Wright Penn. By the way, I think this will make a great double feature with “Stardust” (which I had to exclude since it can’t fit into the romantic comedy category), if anyone’s curious to try...

10. Clueless (1995) - Don't be fooled by that ultra-pink DVD cover - this is a clever, very witty film, and Alicia Silverstone couldn't be more adorable as Cher, the pampered Beverly Hills princess who tries to make her life mean something more. (Oh, and just in case you didn't know, she and her best friend, Dion, are both named "for popular singers of the past who now do infomercials"). As a high-school movie, it's sweet and extremely quotable (Cher's recital of the last line of "A Tale of Two Cities" is priceless). As an adaptation of Jane Austen's "Emma" (yeah, seriously), it's pitch-perfect - it's one of my favorite reworkings of any classic story, and catching the Austen similarities and updates is a huge part of the fun. Also check out Paul Rudd as Cher's sarcastic, "kind of a Baldwin" step-brother, Brittany Murphy in one of her first big roles, "Scrubs" star Donald Faison as a hilarious, supposedly-macho boyfriend, and Breckin Meyer as the sweetest, most loveable stoner since Sean Penn's Spicoli.

And, sorry, you guys - I have to squeeze in just one more...

11. Pretty in Pink (1986) – The late, great John Hughes only wrote the script for this, but his touches are all over the final product: the relatable, awkward teenagers, that cool soundtrack, and, of course, the memorable characters and romance. Basically, it's a love triangle between Andie (frequent Hughes collaborator, Molly Ringwald), a hip girl from the lower side of the class-scale, her goofball best friend, Duckie (Jon Cryer), and the rich (but actually pretty nice) Blane (Andrew McCarthy). There’s also a fun, oily, “villainous” turn from a young James Spader, and an ending that lots of people don’t agree with...but, to me, it all feels very right. It’s a charmer of a movie, and the entire experience is a joyful trip through the heyday of Hughes-dominated high-school classics.

Image courtesy of Universal Pictures.
Read more!

Weekend Bites: Ace vs. The Basterds

Posted By Ace

**Editor's Note: Again sorry about the tardiness on this post. It's been kind of a crazy past couple days. Hope y'all enjoy!

Overall Rating: 4 bites [out of 5]


“Describe what Marcellus Wallace looks like!”
“What?”
“Say what again! Say what again! I dare ya, I double-dare ya, mother-$%#@*! Say what one mo’ goddamn time!”

Ah yes… vintage Tarantino! I love it…

… But… I’ll be honest-- I’m not the biggest Tarantino fan.

I would even be so bold as to say that he’s a little over-rated. (Just don’t tell Jules I said that!)

Don’t get me wrong, his movies are great, and anything he touches seems to turn into an instant cult classic. It’s just that… I don’t get what all the hoopla is about.

Now before I get burned at the stake for heresy, let me just explain myself a little bit.


I can truthfully say that I have NEVER seen a Tarantino movie in theatres before. I was like 8 years old when Reservoir Dogs came out, and 10 when Pulp Fiction came out two years later. And at those ages, the only movies that had any kind of relevance for me were Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 and The Lion King. Plus, there was no way in hell my parents were going to take me to watch either of Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, especially since they wouldn’t even understand what the hell was going on.

But one day, years later, when at long last I had finally grown up, I came home to eat lunch, but mom and dad weren’t home; so I eventually came to the decision to skip my afternoon classes and stay home… because that’s what college kids do. With no adult supervision around, I was free to do whatever I damn well pleased. So I locked the door to my room, lowered the lights, slipped into something more comfortable, crawled into bed and popped in a couple DVDs (No, not those kinds of DVDs). I finally watched Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I thought they were “just okay.” A small part of me also felt obligated to like them based solely on the fact that they were “Tarantino movies.” If I didn’t like them, then there was obviously something wrong with me.

So, in turn, when the Kill Bills came out, I didn’t feel very motivated to go out and watch those either.

Two words— “Net” and “Flix.”

Since I had heard so much hype about the Kill Bills, I thought they’d be the perfect movies to use my Netflix free-trial on. And sadly, I was a little disappointed. I don’t know why. But if I had to guess, it’s probably because all my friends kept saying, “Dude, it’s the best movie I’ve ever seen,” or “Bro, it’s awesome! You gotta watch it!” or my personal favorite, “It’s like… orgasmic… for the eyes!”

But… I didn’t get any of that. They were both just “Eh…” to me.

So when I heard that Tarantino was coming out with another movie, you can probably guess that I wasn’t really sold on watching it. But it’s not entirely to his discredit. The economy is partially to blame (Yea, I said it). $12 a ticket adds up pretty quickly (especially when you and your friends decide to start a movie blog). And realistically, I didn’t see anything in the trailers that was convincing me to go and spend my hard earned $12, plus $10 for popcorn and Diet Coke. I honestly wanted to just sit this one out.

But… because I’m a sucker for impulsively spending my money, and can’t really withstand any modicum of peer pressure, I spent my Friday night watching Inglourious Basterds.

And I must say… I loved it! Well, “love” is a strong word—I really, really, really, liked it!

But before I go into the full on review, here’s a brief synopsis-- It’s about killing Nazis.

Just kidding… not really… the plot really is that simple, but if that doesn’t satisfy you:

The film takes place during WWII in Nazi occupied France and is centralized around three main characters. The first is the Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, who’s built quite the reputation for being “The Jew Hunter.” Then there’s Shoshana Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), the sole surviving member of the Dreyfus clan, who were brutally massacre at the hands of Col. Landa. Years later, she takes refuge in Paris as the manager of a movie theatre. And finally, there’s The Basterds, a band of Jewish-American soldiers, whose sole purpose is to kill Nazis using guerilla warfare tactics. And yes, I classify them as one character, but more on that later. Essentially, all three characters have one goal, one common agenda—to put an end to the war.

So now onto the review…
First and foremost, I would be remiss if I didn’t recognize the phenomenal work that Christoph Waltz put forth in this movie. Not only did he BRING IT as the villain, but he also acted in four—one, two, three, FOUR—different languages seamlessly. (I can’t even act in ONE language!) And like all great villains, he was able to capture the very essence of evil, that menacing aura; from the very moment he appeared on-screen, you could feel the imminent danger, and not just because he was wearing a Nazi uniform. There was something deceptively deviant about Hans Landa, hidden behind all of his charm. He spoke French, he spoke English, he spoke German, he spoke Italian; he was polite and charismatic, cerebral but with an underlying sinister tone. Waltz was able to raise and drop the tension levels at will, stringing the audience along, like a cat playing with a mouse before killing it. But maybe that was the point—to make the audience feel like they were being involved in a meta-theatrical game of cat and mouse.

And since we’re on the subject of acting… sometimes I forget how good of an actor Brad Pitt is. It’s probably because most of his recent body of work that gets any kind of media attention involves either—a) Angelina Jolie; or b) Daniel Ocean (Ocean’s 11, 12, and 13).
But Brad Pitt really held it down as Lt. Aldo Raine, the gritty, albeit eccentric leader of The Basterds. He nailed the role of badass mother-*shut yo’mouth*—if you couldn’t tell by the “Nazi-Hunting-Give-Me-My-Scalps” speech in the trailer and the gigantic scar stretching across his throat. And most importantly he was a character outside of Brad Pitt. What I mean by that is in a lot of Brad Pitt’s movies (more so in his recent films), it just seems to be Brad Pitt acting. It seems like it’s a lot of his own self, his mannerisms and gesticulations, being incorporated into those roles, and consequently, his acting chops are never really on display. But in a movie like this one, where he has to turn on a dirty Southern accent, and really get into a character role, Brad Pitt disappears and all that’s left is Lt. Aldo Raine.

Alright, I think that’s enough about individual performances… Onward to the actual movie… The movie was nothing like I anticipated it to be. Of course it had all of its trademark Tarantino-isms, but it was actually relatively tame in the violence department. It wasn’t ALL blood, guts, and raw violence like the promos were making it out to be. There was actually a lot more dialogue than gunfights and Nazi killing. That being said, you can call it trickery, or false advertisement or whatever you want, one thing is for certain, Inglourious Basterds isn’t what you’d expect it to be based on the trailers. First of all, Brad Pitt may have been the biggest name attached to the movie, but he certainly wasn’t the STAR; that title belongs to Christoph Waltz, who, as I mentioned before, absolutely stole the show. Secondly, “Inglourious Basterds” is kind of an erroneous title—Erroneous! Erroneous on all accounts! (5 points if you know where that line’s from). The reason I say that is because The Basterds weren’t really featured throughout the entire movie. They had a few pivotal scenes, but the movie wasn’t necessarily centralized around them, which segues to my earlier point about The Basterds acting as one, singular character (it made more sense in my head). Other than Lt. Raine, I don’t think any of the Basterds really stood out. All the actors worked as a collective unit to bring the Basterds to life. Granted there were a few that were highlighted, and had their shining moment in the spotlight, but after those moments faded, they just became another Basterd face.

Anyone who’s seen the movie would probably agree that it’s really driven forward by the other two characters, Hans Landa and Soshana Dreyfus. And they would probably also agree that the story being told isn’t a story about American soldiers who are fighting enemy combatants during WWII. If you peel back all the layers and really look at the basic layout of the story, you’ll probably find that the real protagonist is Shoshana. She is arguably the only character that had any semblance of an arc, as the sole survivor of a brutal massacre, and years later, who finds herself sitting face-to-face with her family’s murderer. Without giving too much away, the story is basically about how she copes with her second encounter with the legendary Colonel Landa.

Lastly, the most surprising thing about this movie is the fact that it’s basically a foreign film. A good majority of it was spoken in a different language that wasn’t English, whether French, German, or Italian. At one point in time, French and German were being spoken at the same time. And there’s something to be said about a movie that can attach itself to a mainstream American audience despite the language barrier; the fact that the audience had to read most of the movie, rather than watch it, and still feel emotionally attached to the characters, speaks volumes about the artistry of this film. It was as if to say, good art is not restricted to one language, but pervades all languages.

So why did I enjoy this Tarantino flick more than the others?
I don’t know.

Maybe it was because I got in on the ground floor. I’ve noticed that there seems to be a certain “Tarantino Experience” when you watch his movies in the theatres, when they are fresh and unadulterated by all the hype that follows. I guess that may be true for a lot of movies, but for a director who has such an epic cult following, the hype seems to raise the standard of expectation for every one of his movies. Consequently, if you’re not already in the trenches to experience Tarantino’s movies first-hand, without the influences of blog reviews and hearsay from all of your friends, you’re always left feeling like all of his movies are just… “Eh…”



Images courtesy of The Weinstein Company and Universal Pictures.

Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Bioshock" Film Moves Forward with a New Director!

- Posted by Rusty


Source: Variety
(Found via ComingSoon.net)

Honestly, video games were never really my thing. I played very few as a kid, and minus the occasional Guitar Hero now, I’m still the guy talking about how awesome it was to shoot ducks with the red gun on the old Nintendo!

But “Bioshock” was something unprecedented for me. I was hooked from the moment my roommate started playing it. I didn’t even want to try it myself…I just politely “insisted” that my roommate finish playing it, just so I can see how the story ends. And that’s the big kicker: “Bioshock”, which takes place in Rapture, an underwater utopia-gone-terribly-wrong, has the most absorbing narrative I’ve ever seen in a videogame. It’s not just a series of action sequences — it’s a layered, complicated tale, with interesting characters, and twists you might never see coming...

And it should make one killer movie. (That, and probably “Prince of Persia” as well—Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney are bringing it to life, and the mythology of that world is made for the big screen). For anyone who’s been following, “Bioshock” was supposed to move forward with “Pirates of the Caribbean” director, Gore Verbinski. An excellent choice…but, unfortunately, Verbinski dropped out when the shoot was forced to move to Europe.

Still, good news came out yesterday — the project’s back on track, with “28 Weeks Later” director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo at the helm, and Verbinski still involved as producer. This is actually pretty cool — “28 Weeks” wasn’t as great as “28 Days Later,” but it was a surprisingly good sequel. Fresnadillo showed a strong visual sense, and he made a pretty damn exciting zombie movie — a worthy follow-up to one of my favorite recent horror flicks. I think “Bioshock” is in very good hands — plus, Oscar-nominee John Logan (“Gladiator,” “The Aviator,” "Sweeney Todd”) is writing the script, so I think…just maybe…we might be in for the first quality videogame adaptation. I can't wait to see this - that neon, art-deco, crawling-with-unseen-terrors world of Rapture is going to blow our minds when it finally hits the big screen. If all goes well, look for "Bioshock" to hit theaters late 2010, and keep an eye out for some potentially cool casting announcements in the next few months.

P.S. If you’re interested, read the cool Wiki on “Bioshock” (but be wary of spoilers!), and check out the game trailer below to get a sense of how cinematic the world already is.

Images courtesy of 2K Games.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Shutter Island! What! Why?

Posted by Luke

From out of nowhere, Shutter Island, the highly anticipated film from the visionary Martin Scorsese, staring of course Leonardo DiCaprio was moved from October 2nd to February 2010. Why? This was supposed to be an Oscar contender, fitting in the dark film of the year with academy's favorite tag-team due back again.

The film is based on a novel written by Dennis Lehane, whose books Mystic River and Gone, Baby, Gone have already been made into films (with pre-production of his epic, The Given Day, already underway.) I read Shutter Island and the novel is pretty astonishing: it takes the reader for a ride and does not let you go until the last page. The cast of the film is stellar, along with Leonardo DiCapio, the movie also features Mark Ruffalo, Ben Kingsley, Emily Mortimer, Michelle Williams and Jackie Earle Haley.

However, there is at least one spot in the line-up that has some problems: the screenplay writer Laeta Kalogridis. The past two films she worked on were Pathfinder and Alexander, which were not exactly wildly successful. Of course, in her defense, there are other writers involved in Shutter Island and of course the studio will have a say in what the script will look like. Moreover, she is working on Wichita, directed by James Mangold and starring Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz and James Cameron’s next project, Battle Angel. Hopefully the studios can re-work Shutter Island and get it out this year; no matter what, Shuttle Island will have my ass in the seat. [end of post] Read more!

Food 4 Thought: The Average Asian vs. Hollywood

Posted by Ace.

Editor's Note: Sorry this is up so late. It was kind of a hectic weekend for me, and this is something that's close to my heart so I wanted it to be perfect. In any case... Hope you enjoy!

“Ey Chino, you know kung fu?” asked one of the rather large and imposing Latino kids who were surrounding me, as they readied themselves to pounce on me like a pack of hyenas on a wounded gazelle. He belted out a battle cry mockingly, “WAAAAAAAAH! Waaaaiieee!” He then pulled at the sides of his eyes and began imitating the Crane move from The Karate Kid, waving his hands in a flurry of judo-chops so fast that I didn’t know how to defend myself. At that exact moment, a harsh reality sunk in – I didn’t know Kung Fu. But somehow this kid did! I wished to God that I did know Kung Fu, Karate, or Ninjitsu at that moment, so I could open up the biggest can of whoop-ass the world had ever seen. After all, I was Asian… I was supposed to know how to fight. On some basic, instinctive level, we’re ALL supposed to know how to fight, right?

I guess those are the pitfalls of years of watching Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, and the lesser known Sammo Hung (from TV’s Martial Law) for so many years. And during my impressionable years, those were the few iconic heroes that a young Asian-American boy could look up to. Badly dubbed over, high-flying, ass-kicking Kung Fu artists, not born in the U.S.

You can probably see where I’m going with this by now. And I’m not trying to make this about your Average Asian man’s complaint against Hollywood and how underrepresented we are. I just want to drop some knowledge. A lil’ something for all of you to chew on, to mull over… Food for thought, if you will. (Did y’all see what I did there??? Pretty smoooooth…)

So indulge me, open your mind, and remember… there is no spoon.


FRACTURED. If I could describe the Asian-American experience in one word, that’s what it would be.

Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on life by any means. In fact, in the 25 years that I’ve walked this earth, I can honestly say that there isn’t a single field that I can consider myself an expert in. But one thing that I’ve learned, mainly through Asian-American studies classes in college and general observations, is that we are a fractured people.

Before you get all your collective panties in a bunch and start huffin’ and puffin’ about how untrue that statement is, or wondering what the hell any of this has to do with movies, please let me explain. I understand that to most readers, you probably won’t understand or relate to this whatsoever, so I’ll do my best to relay unto you my humble observations about the Average Asian man’s experience , and I assure you, this will somehow relate back to cinema in some way.

If you look at the whole of the Asian-American demographic, you’ll notice that there is no uniformity in our socioeconomic status. It spans all across the board. We range from rich to poor; half of us are Republicans, the other half are Democrats; half of us are doctors, the other half are lawyers… just kidding… some of us are engineers too… just kidding again. My point is that there really isn’t a single solitary cause that unites us, nothing that can definitively bring us together as a race. We are a fractured race, EXCEPT when it comes to watching an Asian-American man or woman on the screen. Suddenly, there’s a sense of pride that swells in the community as we watch our unofficial representatives perform. And in turn, the responsibilities and pressures of representing the ENTIRE Asian-American community rests on his/her shoulders. And in the midst of it all, everyone is thinking the exact same thing—Please don’t suck!

But maybe I’m generalizing too much, so allow me to share some of my personal experiences and hopefully I can paint a better picture for you.

I remember when I was a kid there were very few Asian-American actors and actresses in film and television. In other words, there were very few Asian-American heroes or role models for a young tyke, such as myself, to look up to or aspire to be like. Through the mid-90s, my “heroes” consisted only of Mr. Miyagi, and the bad guy from Bloodsport.

But then, two stars emerged-- Ming Na (Joy Luck Club and Street Fighter: The Movie) and Russell Wong (TV’s Vanishing Son). Ming Na probably became the biggest star, and really the face of Asian-America for the longest time. I remember watching Joy Luck Club with my family and all of us feeling so proud that there was a movie with an all Asian cast, a film that we could finally call our own. Ming Na seemed to become a star overnight, because she was one of the FIRST Asian-American actresses to break into the mainstream. But consequently, she also became the default Asian actress for a lot of movies, mainly because there were so few back then, which led her to being cast as Chun-Li in the monstrosity of a film called Street Fighter: The Movie.

Russel Wong found stardom playing Jian-Wa Chang in a made for TV movie called Vanishing Son, which later became a weekly television show that followed Kevin Sorbo’s Hercules. For those of you who don’t remember, the basic synopsis goes a little something like this—The Chang bros. come to America from China. Wago, the younger, gets involved with gang life and ends up being killed, along with two federal agents during a fire fight. Jian-Wa is now on the hunt to find the leader of the gang and all the culprits responsible for his brother’s murder, all the while being chased by the feds who think he’s responsible for the deaths of the other federal agents (I know, sounds kind of like Kung Fu). In any case, I tuned in faithfully in support of my Asian brothers, again with that same sense of pride, feeling like – at last, we made it. There was finally a strong, Asian-American lead actor to look up, who didn’t speak English with a heavy accent, or didn’t have to be dubbed over. But I guess the rest of America didn’t feel the same way because after only two seasons, Vanishing Son became Xena: Warrior Princess.

As years past, I noticed that more and more Asian-American actors and actresses began breaking out into the mainstream. But the roles that these actors were breaking into all started becoming the same. The women were cast as the object of affection, sex symbols for the average-looking white man, acting opposite them. The men, on the other hand, were cast as-- a) the villain, whose evil and mysterious wiles were used for world domination; or more recently what seems to be the trend is-- b) as the effeminized sidekick, who’s entirely incapable of getting the girl and being the hero. The men usually have the short end of that stick, as countless jokes are castoff about the size of certain areas of their anatomy, only to be perpetuated by continuous type-casting into roles that basically castrate the Asian actor.

At this point, maybe you’re thinking to yourself, “Maybe that was the case back in the days, when I was young, I’m not a kid anymore, but some days I sit and wish I was a kid again…” Sorry… I love that song. But as I was saying, maybe you’re thinking, “Maybe that was the case back during the days when they were still making The Mysterious Mr. Wong, and Charlie Chan movies.” (If you don’t know what I’m talking about, basically Mr. Wong and Charlie Chan were Hollywood’s version of Blackface for the Asian characters-- White actors playing the role of Asian characters, or rather caricatures, of the mystical, mysterious, and villainous Chinese man.) But if you look closely, have things really changed? Just off the top of my head, I can list off several movies with Asian-American actors cast in these stereotypes—the aforementioned Bloodsport, Mortal Kombat, and even modern films such as The Last Samurai, Crash, Pineapple Express, The Hangover, and G.I. JOE. Granted in Mortal Kombat, the villain was supposed to be an Asian guy, and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa played a badass Shang Tsung, but what’s the excuse for the other movies?

Can someone explain to me how it made any sense for a White guy to be “The Last Samurai?"

In Crash, a movie centralized around the issue of race, every other race had one redeeming moment, one redeeming quality, EXCEPT the Asians.

In Pineapple Express, the evil masterminds behind all the mayhem of the movie was caused by, guess who? The Asians.

In G.I.JOE, good Caucasian ninja vs. evil Asian ninja. And... the white guy won!

And in The Hangover, the major antagonist in the movie was played by? An Asian. But not only was he the villain, he was an effeminate villain!

Which leads me to my next point – the wrongs of the Asian man's effeminate role in movies nowadays. I don’t understand why this trend emerged, or how it came to existence. But if I had to guess, I would assume that it derived from the stereotype of Asian waiters and dishwashers, or other positions of servitude. Somehow, those stereotypes evolved into the stereotype of the sexually inept Asian man, as if to say that positions of servitude are equated with emasculated roles. And if you look at the recent trend of the token Asian role that seems to fit the mold. Now, maybe you’re thinking I’m being too sensitive and over analyzing this whole thing. But think about it. When was the last time you saw an Asian man share a kiss with a gorgeous woman on-screen? (Yes, there was John Cho in Harold and Kumar, but he may be the one exception) Let’s look at some other examples, starting with some of the more recent ones that I’ve caught. In He’s Just Not That Into You, and in Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist, Leonardo Nam and Aaron Yoo both played gay men, respectively. Before I go on, let me make this clear, there is nothing wrong with a heterosexual man playing a homosexual man on-screen – a lot of actors do it and do it well (and gay actors play straight men just as well, i.e. NPH in HIMYM). But what I have a problem with is the fact that it seems that if you’re an Asian-American actor, and you don’t know martial arts, you’re automatically cast into playing a role in which you have no shot in having any kind of romantic involvement with a woman.

But that may not even be entirely true. Here's a lesser known fact-- In Romeo Must Die, the original script had Aaliyah and Jet Li sharing a kiss at the end of the movie, but the producers changed it because they thought it would look too weird for an Asian man to kiss a woman on-screen, that it would be too unrealistic. So maybe having Kung Fu skills won't get you the girl either. I guess even Jet Li wasn’t “man” enough to get a kiss. Is there not something incredibly offensive about that? Would it really look too weird for an Asian man to get the girl at the end of the movie? Maybe.

Or maybe... Hollywood isn’t as progressive as it claims to be…

Anyway, I’ve harped on long enough about this, so I’ll end it with this-- there are so many of us now out there in the mainstream media, ranging from actors to comedians to news anchors to writers to athletes. Our list of B/C-list stars is short, but it’s growing. And I realize that we can’t really expect these actors to be our representatives and role models. That’s a lot of pressure. They have to put food on the table somehow, even if it requires them to play these stereotypes. The problem herein lies with the fan’s reactions. For us Asian-Americans, how are we supposed to feel about being typecast into these stereotypes?

Are we supposed to feel proud? Absolutely. At least we’re out there, getting media attention. (Plus, we make some badass villains.)

Are we supposed to feel offended? Absolutely. It’s an absolute outrage that Asian-American actors, or any race for that matter, are constantly being typecast, solely based on a racial stereotype.

But... I guess that’s just another thing to be fractured about…


Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Man-sized Snacks!

Posted by Ace

Okay, so I don't know why our last couple posts have been about Chick-flicks, but I'm going to put an end to that right now.

If you haven't seen it, here it is... the trailer for Avatar.



Soooo siiiick! It looks amazing. We actually got to check out footage of this at Comic-Con and the trailer makes me feel all giddy again. I can't wait 'til December 18. But if you're one of the lucky few, there are special sneak peek screenings of clips of footage happening all over the country tonight. So enjoy!

... And just in case you've been living under a rock for the past few months...

Inglourious Basterds comes out today!



Okay, testosterone is back to normal... Peace!
[end] Read more!

Top-10 Romantic Comedies

Posted by Luke

Okay, I love romantic comedies. I do. Yes, I watch them alone too. I’m writing this because of the several romantic comedies released this summer from (500) Days of Summer to The Ugly Truth. All right, now that I have admitted this, I can tell you some of my favorites in this genre.

Don’t get mad at me because I have not seen “The Philadelphia Story” or some other classics – this list is based on my non-scientific sample. In addition, I cannot stand Matthew “I always take my shirt off for every scene even if it is a heavy depressing drama such as Schindler’s List where thousands of people are getting murdered each day especially in the scene with the girl in the red in a pile of dead people” McConaughey. Sorry everyone, his movies will not be on this list.

You will see that some of the same names of people either behind the camera or in front of the camera keep getting mentioned on this Top 10 list. Of course, how can you write about romantic comedies without mentioning Woody Allen or the present-day Queen of romantic comedies, Norah Ephron? Then there are the actors such as the Brit master of this genre Hugh Grant and the used-to-be-so-amazingly beautiful Meg Ryan (why get work done?) and two-time co-star Tom Hanks. Those guys have to be on the list. But enough of me writing on and on; here is the list.

Enjoy and if you disagree please comment. I will be ready to defend my list till death.



1. When Harry Met Sally – The writing, the directing, and the great moments between Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal. Here is one of my many favorite lines from the movie -

Harry Burns: You know, you may be the first attractive woman I've not wanted to sleep with in my entire life.

Sally Albright: That's wonderful, Harry.

2. Love, Actually – This movie makes me laugh and cry so damn much. Truth, I can watch it every day.

3. Annie Hall – One of Woody’s best films.

4. Some like it Hot – Norma Jean. Jack Lemmon. Tony Curtis. Billy Wilder. What could be better?

5. Manhattan - Another great Woody film. However, Woody’s character seems a little creepy considering his personal life.

6. Sleepless in Seattle – Ephron wrote and directed this clever film. Meg and Tom’s first film together.

7. Notting Hill – Hugh Grant and cast are just great. Spike is classic!

8. You’ve Got Mail – Another Ephron, Meg and Tom collaboration.

9. Don Juan de Marco – Johnny Depp and Marlon Brando together. Trivia Time! Do not look on IMDB, because I know you will. What movie did they both star in together that was never realeased?

10. Four Weddings and a Funeral - Young Hugh in the film that started his career as one of the best romantic comedy actors around.

Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Post-Grad"

- Posted by Rusty

It’s weird that this movie isn’t getting more attention. Check out the trailer above - it actually comes out tomorrow opposite Tarantino’s mad WWII badass-Jews epic, “Inglourious Basterds”. It looks like a low-key, funny little film…with a topic that I (and I’m guessing quite a few recent grads) can very much relate to (feeling a bit lost after college, trying to find a decent job with your degree…and failing — you know, all that great stuff). And it’s got Alexis Bledel in her first leading role in a movie; I loved her in “Gilmore Girls,” and she specializes in giving us thoughtful, appealing heroines. Plus, look at that supporting cast: Michael Keaton (so great to see him back on the screen!), Jane Lynch (from “Role Models” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin”), Rodrigo Santoro (Carl from “Love Actually” and the ill-fated Paulo from “LOST”), and the always-scene-stealing J.K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson from the “Spider-Man” movies, as well as the dad in “Juno” and “I Love You, Man”). It might get completely slaughtered this weekend, but if it’s as good as the trailer suggests, it should have a nice, long life on DVD. I’ll try to catch it this weekend if I have the chance…check it out too if you’re interested. [end of post] Read more!

The Daily Munchies: Look Familiar??

Posted by Ace



I came across this poster while I was jogging today (or is it pronounced yogging, with a soft J?). And I thought it looked eerily familiar... I just couldn't place my finger on it...

... Hmm... What does this poster remind you of??? ...



...Wait for it...





That's riiiight...



... IT'S THE EXACT SAME POSTER FOR UNDERWORLD 2!!

Marketing FAIL!!

On that note, I'd just like to add that I'd really like to see someone as drop dead gorgeous as Kate Beckinsale (who's also got talent to match) do a decent film. Granted, I loved the Underworlds (KB in skin-tight leather renders no complaints from me) and she was SMOKIN' in Click, but a movie named after something you use to correct typos with seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me. In any case, I'll still probably watch it because Kate Beckinsale makes me go *huhmuhna-huhmuhna-huhmuhna*

Peace!
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Law Abiding Citizen"

- Posted by Rusty

Not sure what to think of this one yet. The trailer (see it below) shows us the basic premise: Gerard Butler’s a vengeful criminal (for a righteous cause, though—Butler can’t play that bad of a guy…) who matches wits and explosions with Jamie Foxx’s maybe-crooked agent. I love a good cat-and-mouse game, and Jamie Foxx (an actor I really respect, if not necessarily like outside of his films) is always solid. Plus, this looks to be some of Butler’s best acting since the little-seen “Dear Frankie”.

Then again, it’s directed by F. Gary Gray, who gave us one good movie a few years back (the "Italian Job” remake), and none since (“Be Cool,” “A Man Apart”). The cast is fine, but the movie (and perhaps the script) doesn’t strike me as that interesting or appealing, at least judging by the trailer. It looks potentially like good actors stuck in a run-of-the-mill story. Maybe it’s a bad representation and another trailer will change my mind. Could be…but, for now, I'm kind of on the fence about it. See what you make of it. This one comes out October 16th.

[end of post] Read more!

Late Lunches: The Crazy Russian Tackles (of all things) "Step Up 2"

-Posted by Rusty

Review: “Step Up 2: The Streets”

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

“Why the hell am I watching this? And…wait, did I just kind of enjoy that?”

Both good questions. Both ran through my mind as I spent a lazy day home from work. This was on STARZ, and I turned it on right for the first dance sequence. Right on time for my good man, Channing Tatum (actually quite funny and likeable here), in a dance-off with new lead, Briana Evigan (who I really think could be a star one day).

And you know what? It wasn’t bad at all.

Channing Tatum had like 10 minutes of screen time at best, coming back as the character from the original movie to give our new heroine, the sassy, talented Andie, a nudge in the right direction. The plot kicks into gear when Andie, a “street dancer” (as a snooty dance instructor says it — you think he’ll change his mind?), gets a chance to go to the Maryland School of the Arts. Slowly but surely, she finds some kindred spirits aside from the preppy “clones”, and they band together to compete at a legendary dance competition called “The Streets.”

Evigan is a new face to me, but she’s got a ton of fire and charm. Her Andie is sharp, pretty witty, and can stand toe-to-toe with any guy. It also helps that she’s really pretty…but, in a cute, punk-ish, rebellious way—I like that she’s a bit different, that she gives off an edgy, don’t-mess-with-me vibe. Evigan is about to star in two horror movies (“Sorority Row” and an untitled one where she runs away from a cougar intent on eating her—I swear, that’s the actual plot description), but I think we'll see her in many more (and better) movies soon. I was very pleasantly surprised by how comfortably she held her own here; she’s a natural on screen, and she shows some real talent (not to mention amazing dancing chops).

Actually, I was pleasantly surprised by the whole movie. I totally expected to hate it, but — minus the last act, which is pretty predictable, and a subplot that’s unintentionally funny — for the most part, I think the film works. It’s a straight-down-the-line movie — almost good, but not really all that bad. Take this as a half-hearted recommendation, and just catch it on TV for a pleasant hour and a half.

While the film’s many rehearsal montages are pretty cool to watch, the parts of the movie that work the best are the dialogue and romance scenes (yeah, seriously). All the cast members, particularly Adam G. Sevani as Moose (who’s like a younger, slightly dorkier, but very loveable Shia LaBoeuf), have nice chemistry together, and, for some bonus points, they interact like actual teenagers. There’s a fun, unexpectedly loose rhythm to the dialogue — it’s somewhat jokey, but feels pretty authentic — it actually captures the way friends gently make fun of each other, and that’s pretty rare in teen films. Moreover, even the romances don’t seem tacky. There are two in the movie, and both are rather sweet—the couples never get cutesy, and the awkwardness, banter, and attraction all feel quite genuine. And, by the way, this might sound like a stupid achievement, but kudos to the “Step Up” filmmakers for having a handsome male lead who’s actually pretty smart. Chase (Robert Hoffman) could’ve been a bland, dopey “dream guy,” but in a good combination of performance and writing, Andie’s love interest is just an intelligent, talented, well-liked dude—they do exist in the real world…good to see one in the movies for a change (I’d almost compare him to Paul Rudd in “Clueless” if the movie was a little better).

But there are some missteps. Actually some major ones. I could’ve lived with the corny plotline of the Professor-Who-Just-Can’t-See-Andie’s-True-Talent-Until-the-End, but we also have an incredibly unnecessary rivalry with Andie’s old dance crew. Andie was forced to leave the crew because she joined MSU (how dare she go to a fine institution!), but then her old cohorts just can’t leave it alone. They taunt here, graffiti her school’s studio, and, well, just leer at her with lots of attitude whenever she comes by. They’re led by Tuck, who, throughout the movie, is literally some sort of dancing psychopath. At one point, he even drives up to Chase as he’s walking home, and asks, as toughly as possible, “So, I heard you were dancing it up in there?” How is “dancing it up” even remotely offensive? And Chase is a dancer — what else was he supposed to do?!

Oh, and then he beats Chase up because he doesn’t want him competing at “The Streets”. Why? I don't really know...but it sure is a sensitive issue for him.

I wish I could let that part of the movie slide, but Tuck (who also squeezes in lots of violent temper tantrums in between dancing) is too cartoonish to take seriously, and his moronic shenanigans take up way too much time. It’s funny stuff after a while, but I'm sure that’s not what the filmmakers were going for. And that’s too bad — there’s a charming movie in here that, with a quick snip of that entire subplot, would’ve been instantly better.

Still, the dancing (and, really, the rest of the movie) mostly makes up for Tuck’s ridiculous posse. Simply put, I thought the dancing was pretty incredible — most impressive of all was that final sequence in the rain (you might’ve seen glimpses of it in the trailer). I also liked that all the actors did their own dancing (to the extent we can see), but they seem to be actors first, and that helps immeasurably for the chunks of the movie that can’t rely on cool moves.

Overall, just a pretty enjoyable movie, if not exactly a good one. In real life, I have a weird relationship with dancing — I never properly learned (unacceptable for a Russian!), but I scraped by for years on just being able to slow-dance. So, movies like this are kind of a peek into things that are a bit beyond me. (Really, I don’t think my body could even contort like these guys without some serious damage.) It was a given that I’d at least like the dancing parts…but it really surprised me that I honestly cared for this quirky bunch of people.

There’s actually another “Step Up” movie coming soon (yep, “Step Up 3-D”), and while I probably won't see that one in theaters…it will be a most definite guilty-pleasure rental when it hits DVD. Or a random watch on STARZ on a day off from work, of course.

Image courtesy of Summit Entertainment and Touchstone Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies “In the Loop” didn’t keep me in it

Posted by Luke

In the Loop is a comedy that almost all the critics seem to love. But this crude independent satire did not do it for me. In the Loop is directed by Armando Iannucci and was written by Jesse Armstrong and Simon Blackwell. The script is based on the BBC TV mini series The Thick of It and features a vast ensemble cast from Tom Hollander to James Gandolfini.

Let me make this absolutely clear: I love dark comedies and well-made satires. Perhaps it is just me, but I found it tremendously difficult to track each of the characters with the comedy’s sly adult humor. For me, it frankly did not work. Yes, there are a few funny jokes here and there, and a good deal of nasty language for a kick, but the creators failed to make sure the audience would be able to follow each character. It was not the actors’ fault at all; the writing and editing just did not work.
If you want to see a movie that succeeds in this genre, pick up a copy of Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove. Kubrick’s masterpiece will not let you down. So just pop in the DVD and save 12 bucks. [end]

Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "New Moon"... Really??

I just came across this trailer, and I had to throw in my two cents. Do the folks over at The Twilight Saga camp really think they're making a quality movie?? Does Taylor Lautner really think that this is good work?? More importantly, does Taylor Lautner know that he's a complete douche??

I guess that's a little hypocritical of me, since I haven't seen the movie or read the books and I don't really know what the craze is all about...

Well call me a HYPOCRITE because I'm never gonna!

Posted by Ace the Hypocrite [end] Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "The Goods" is No GOOD!

Posted by Ace

So, if you've never heard of this movie, it's completly alright. Matter of fact, you should probably keep it that way. I'm not even gonna waste anyone's time with a full on review. I'll keep it plain and simple -- "The Goods" was no good! Don't watch it. Don't waste your time. Don't waste your money.

I was genuinely hoping for a quality comedy; I thought, "Jeremy Piven is a good actor and he does good work." But I couldn't have been more wrong. It's a compilation of 1000 different sex jokes, hoping that at least one them sticks. And it was pretty evident that the writer and director were clearly just trying too hard. If this were baseball, their batting average might be .001. With movie prices the way they are nowadays, The Goods was a rather expensive nap! [end] Read more!

Weekend Bites: Crazy Russian Travels to "District 9"

- Posted by Rusty

Review: "District 9"
My Rating: 3 ½ bites [out of 5]

Seen the brilliant, misleading trailer? Or the catchy “For Humans Only” marketing campaign (like the picture below)? Good, now go see “District 9”. That’s as simple as I could make this review — this is one of the best things I’ve seen in theaters in a while (minus “(500) Days of Summer, of course, but that’s a total 180 from this film). It’s an intelligent, all-around-pretty-awesome action film, and it still packs quite the emotional punch (my biggest criteria for these types of films). Not bad for a movie I knew nothing about until only a few months ago. Even more impressive for a $30-million alien flick (roughly 1/5 of what “G.I. Joe” cost) from an unknown, rookie director (Neill Blomkamp) and a first-time film actor (Sharlto Copley, Blomkamp’s real-life best friend). It might be a tad overhyped by this point, and I think the violence borders on overkill, but this is still a strong, very well-made movie…and the debut of some impressive new talent. Keep your eyes out for this director-star combo—we should expect some very good work from them in the future…

First off, let’s tackle that pretty cool backstory. About 20 years ago, a giant spaceship hovered over Johannesburg, South Africa (anyone else love the fact that it doesn’t take place in America? How much we want to bet that if a studio made this film, we’d see all the action in, like, Chicago?). The South African government broke their way in, and found the aliens (bug-like beings called “prawns”) starving and slowly dying. With a swift effort, they rounded up all the prawns, and put them in an isolated, guarded, dreadful slum called “District 9”.

Hmm…shades of apartheid? Absolutely, but this is a film smart enough to not beat us over the head with that; yes, the allusion is there, but co-writer/director Blomkamp never loses sight of the story, and the end result goes deeper than just that brutal chapter of South African history. Good science-fiction is never really about the robots, the aliens, or the monstrous creatures, but rather what it reveals about us as human beings. This film is no different — through the relationships with the prawns, Blomkamp emphasizes our inherent mistrust of anyone different, our misguided tendencies to dominate over those we feel are less worthy, to strip beings of their basic human rights following some viciously moronic, racist ideologies. The treatment of the prawns is something we’ve done before, and not just in South Africa (regarding them as inferiors, bordering them in dirty, god-awful slums, sending them to concentration camps following “the will of the people”) — except that we’ve done those things to fellow humans. Chilling, right? It only takes clicking, bug-like aliens to show us how we’re capable of treating each other. And all of that is before the true action even kicks in.

Did I mention that this is a kickass action film? For those who love social commentary, you’ll have that in spades. For pure action fans, trust me, you’ll get something great out of this too. As a guy who loves both, “District 9” was almost the perfect science-fiction story.

In a clever, documentary-like fashion, the film starts off with Wikus Van De Merwe (Copley), a worker for the massive private company Multi-National United (MNU), and his assignment to relocate all the prawns into the specially-constructed District 10 outside of Johannesburg. See, the people are tired of the aliens in such close proximity, so the government designed a “special camp” outside the city where the prawns would be “better off.” Except not really — the new location is really like a concentration camp, and, even though the prawns are supposed to get a 24-hour notice before eviction, MNU decided to speed the process up by serving them their eviction notices…and transporting them the same day. Wikus is a fascinating character to follow through all this. He’s dweeby, maybe not the brightest, but he sure gets along with everyone, and, deep down, he probably means well. But he’s also a bit of a weasel. He cares about alien rights, but only to an extent. He would much rather get the job done for MNU, even if it means sidestepping those pesky legal issues. That is, of course, until Wikus accidentally touches some alien matter. And then…

Well, you’ll just have to see the movie. No way in hell am I spoiling that here! Let’s just say things take a very interesting turn as we launch into the final hour.


As Wikus, newcomer Sharlto Copley is phenomenal — what an amazing debut. Considering this is his first professional acting gig, Copley goes through a powerful transformation in this film, and it’s completely believable the entire way through. This guy’s the real deal, and he should be a around for a long time. There’s one particular scene of him on the phone with his wife which just killed me — it was acted so beautifully, with such real, heartbreaking feeling. I’m not even the type who cries at movies (It’s weird to me too, no worries — just think of it as one of my few manly qualities), but this was the closest I came to that in a while.

However, as much as I loved Wikus, he’s really only half of the emotional center of “District 9”; the real soul belongs to the most unexpected source. At some point in the film, Wikus teams up with Christopher Johnson and his young son…but, bland name aside, Christopher is a prawn, likely the smartest one of the bunch. While a good chunk of the prawns are angry and prone to violence, Christopher is kind and intelligent, and his relationship with his son is the true heart of the film. There’s another scene with Christopher, trying to calmly explain to his son that they’re about to be relocated to District 10. Just watch those eyes, so full of pain and defeat, as Christopher tries to make the concentration camp sound “better” and more comfortable than the dirty shack they have right now. Another brilliant scene, and who would’ve thought that two aliens having an intimate conversation could work so well, on a purely emotional level at that? Or that it’d ring so true to some of the grave injustices inflicted on actual human beings (in addition to space-bugs)?

I won’t spoil much else, but take my word that Christopher has a plan, and putting that plan into gear launches the last 40 minutes of the film, which also happens to feature some of the best action sequences of the year. Those who find the first hour or so kind of slow, just sit back and enjoy these final sequences — the pacing never lets up, and this is some overall exceptional, thrilling work. I mentioned the movie’s budget a while back, and while $30 million is probably more than I’ll ever see in my life…for an action movie, particularly a CGI-infused science-fiction one like this one, it’s virtually nothing. Think of it like an independent film — a “Garden State” for the “Transformers” genre. The special effects are also seamless, and wonderfully used — the prawns look realistic, and the eyes (they really have no mouths, just tentacles) completely life-like. The spaceships, weaponry, and, most of all, that mothership hovering over Johannesburg are all very impressive as well — this is quite the achievement in many ways.

I do wish the film was less violent, or at the very least more subtle in how it portrayed it. Yeah, you could say all the splattering body parts and exploding humans were part of the story, but it still felt a bit gratuitous. That’s pretty much my biggest complaint with the film. My friend, Linda (who did the amazing, ridiculously cool profile picture for our coming-soon revamp), keeps making fun of me, because her and I are on different spectrums. She loves her tasteful violence, while I go for the more mushy, touchy-feely stuff. “District 9” really has both—it works very well on a touching, human level (pretty cool, right? Even though the aliens and Wikus are pretty much the most humane characters), but it doesn’t hold back on the gore front. It could work for many, but I think a quieter approach to the carnage scenes would have made the film more powerful, and given it a much more lasting (and scarier) impact.

I haven’t mentioned producer Peter Jackson at all (who gets the fancy “Presents” credit which opens the movie), even though his involvement probably got this picture made to begin with. If anyone remembers, a few years back, Jackson hand-picked Blomkamp to direct the mega-budget “Halo” movie. That, of course, fell through—I would guess the studio wasn’t too comfortable hiring a first-timer to direct their video-game epic. But, I don’t know about you guys, I’m really glad the “Halo” movie never happened — if it did, we would’ve never gotten “District 9.” Blomkamp is a smart filmmaker, understanding the need for an engaging story and characters we genuinely feel for (much like his mentor, Mr. Jackson). It’s a treat to see someone as big as Jackson supporting an absolute unknown, but he believed in his talent…and he was very right. I can’t wait to see what Blomkamp does next. If “Halo” actually comes together (and that might very well happen, since, as of now, “District 9” is a profitable hit), in Blomkamp’s hands and under Jackson’s watchful creative eye, we should be in for something great.

I can’t get in too much more without revealing some of the film’s interesting developments and clever little twists, so I’ll just say this: that final shot is perfect. Simple as that—moving, bittersweet, and just plain perfect for the end of this story. I heard Peter Jackson coyly mention a sequel to this film, and even though I shrugged off the idea at first, the ending leaves a sequel wide-open…and, damn it, now I really need to see more! If they approach it in a fresh, interesting perspective (which I’m sure these guys will), I’ll be there, first in line, ready to see what they come up with. “District 10”? I don’t know about you guys, but I’m very up for another trip into this world.

So, to sum all this up, without any more babbling on my part…go see “District 9.” It may not be for everyone (especially the squeamish), but if you make it through, right up to that lovely parting shot, you’ll see exactly what I mean — you’ll be as crazy about the whole experience as I am.



Images courtesy of Wingnut Films and Sony Pictures.
Read more!

The Daily Munchies: "Wolverine 2" is a Go...and with a Much Better Writer!

- Posted by Rusty

This summer's "Wolverine" movie was, uh, to put it as nicely as possible, not quite good. For what it was worth, minus the pretty terrible, underdeveloped script, I had a good time watching it, mainly because Liev Schriber running on all fours like a dog was one of the funniest moments of the summer. Plus, Gambit's my favorite X-Man, so if "Wolverine's" legacy is the introduction of Taylor Kitsch as the Cajun card-thrower, I could live with that.

Still, Wolverine is a great character...and he deserves a much better movie. Hugh Jackman owns this role, and despite the film around him, he was consistently good in "Wolverine." Jackman also has a ton of good will behind him, and he could do wonders for the character with solid material to back him up (remember "X2"?). So, if he wants to strap on the adamantium claws again, I'll be right there on opening day.

Which is good news, since "Wolverine 2" is now officially a go, and 20th Century Fox brought in Christopher McQuarrie to write the new draft (check out The Hollywood Reporter for the whole story) - this version will feature Frank Miller's famous story arc of Wolverine's time in Japan. McQuarrie is a genuinely talented writer ("The Usual Suspects," the unofficial first draft of "X-Men", "Valkyrie"), and also best buds with director Bryan Singer, who, to this day, gave us the best showcases for Wolverine (and the rest of the X-Men). Hmm...with Singer temporarily available, you think he might jump back onto the mutant bandwagon? Either way, some good news on the "Wolverine" front - let's keep it coming.

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox. Read more!

Food 4 Thought: "G.I. Joe" and Action-Adventure Heroes

- Posted by Rusty


Hello Fellow Lunchers!

Introducing -- A new Lunch Table exclusive!!

So we've decided to implement a new regular blogpost that'll be highlighted on a weekly basis. It's a new way for us to speak our minds outside of just movie reviews or random blurbs. So in essence, you all get to read about what goes on in the inner workings of our respective minds, whether you like it or not (Sorry). But don't be fooled... these new posts are more than just random rantings. Our goal is to provide thought-provoking editorials and commentaries about the film industry, cinema, or whatever else our collective hearts' desire. So make sure to check back in every Friday to get your weekends started off right. And now, without further adieu, we'd like to present Food 4 Thought Fridays.

- "The Lunch Table" team

"G.I. Joe" and Action-Adventure Heroes

Okay, that's a somewhat tough intro to follow. I think I'm capable of deep, throught-provoking ideas about cinema, but, if you guys will bear with me, my more "intelligent stuff" will come in the next round of this column. This is actually a fun idea that I've been thinking over for a while (blame years of action and adventure movies...and many months of making fun of Channing Tatum), so I figured I gotta get it out now...before it sneaks into one of my reviews, and makes it even more unbearably long. So, with that, let's ponder some "G.I. Joe" ridiculousness...

I’m going to guess a good chunk of you saw “G.I. Joe” last weekend. I'm with you completely-I couldn’t resist seeing Cobra rise either, particularly with the actually-pretty-cool work of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Cobra Commander and all the nifty gadgets, fights, and world locations. If I was 10 years old, this would’ve been hands-down my favorite movie...probably ever! But that’s getting off track. If you haven’t, check out Ace’s solid review of the flick here—for the most part, I agree with him, but I was actually a bit more forgiving. And, if it’s any consolation, of the two movies this summer based on Hasbro toys, I thought “G.I. Joe” was the much more enjoyable and coherent one.

But I’m here with a bit of other food for thought. For those who saw it, remember that quick, minute-long cameo by Brendan Fraser as Unnamed G.I. Joe Trainer? I’m a big fan of Fraser in general (particularly his more serious work, like "Gods and Monsters"), and, likely as a favor for his “Mummy” director, Stephen Sommers, this was a cute, simple cameo—a kind of passing of the torch from one goofy franchise to another. But it also got me thinking. Fraser had a few lines at best, all capped off by the G.I. Joe-lore standard line of “Yo, Joe.” Yet he said it with that perfect tone—that mix between selling it honestly, but with a slight, amused detachment. Fraser’s a master of this—he’s believable in ridiculous situations, but, without really breaking character, manages to convey that he’s actually having fun with the role. Same with “The Mummy”. I might be in the minority on this, but I think a major reason why that movie works is due to Fraser. He understands that the material needs to be played not so much with a wink to the audience, but a sly understanding that this isn’t exactly high art. He lets the audience know that he’s in on the joke, essentially telling us it’s okay to have a little fun with the story.

And he’s not alone. Imagine “Star Wars” (ahem, as Han Solo himself put it in a tribute to George Lucas, “the earlier, funnier ones”) or “Indiana Jones” without Harrison Ford. Not too many actors could’ve traveled at hyper speed, worn that fedora, or bickered with Chewbacca and Sean Connery with half as much charisma. A lot of people railed against “Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull,” but I really enjoyed it. Sure, it wasn’t as good as my favorite of the trilogy, “Last Crusade,” but in watching it, I remembered why Harrison Ford is a star—because he engages with the material in a way lesser actors can’t. He gets the rhythms and humor of the character, the outlandish situations, the big, giddy fun of the action sequences, and sells it perfectly to the audience. He is Han Solo, that loveable space scoundrel, and Indiana Jones, the most ass-kicking archaeologist in history, but he never forgets that these characters can’t work if you take them too seriously.


The same could be said for Shia LaBoeuf in “Transformers,” Johnny Depp in “Pirates” (in all his chameleon-like genius), Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man” and many, many more of our favorite stars. That nimble approach to playing such larger-than-life characters is an interesting (and very necessary) skill, and it often distinguishes the smart actors from the far less experienced ones.

That’s not to say that this particular style will work for all films. Imagine Daniel Craig’s James Bond in a Sean Connery Bond film, say “Goldfinger”—ridiculous, right? You’d keep wondering why this bastard is so freaking serious and intense amidst all the fun villains and gadgets. Daniel Craig will probably kill someone before he’s forced to banter or make some sort of cheeky pun. And it works both ways: the loose and jokey James Bond of the past would be awful in the newer, more complicated films—tonally, it wouldn’t match at all. Each type of film really demands a certain style of acting, and fun, over-the-top action films are no exception.

Which brings me back to “G.I. Joe.” I give Channing Tatum, “G.I. Joe’s” leading man, a lot of crap, and maybe he doesn’t deserve it. I heard he was terrific opposite Shia LaBoeuf (Indiana Jones Jr. himself) in “A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints,” and, who knows, maybe he has good work ahead of him. But, to me, he doesn’t seem to have much range yet, and, as I sort of expected, he just wasn’t that good in “G.I. Joe.” Unlike Fraser and Harrison Ford, Tatum just didn’t have a handle on the character—he wasn’t a strong enough lead for a movie that needed a solid center, especially one with a good sense of humor about himself. I get that Duke, the perfect military man, isn’t exactly the deepest character, but Tatum played him straight—honorable, strong, super-determined…and very, very boring—and I think that brought the movie down.


Fraser’s cameo in the movie made me think we needed someone like that in the lead. He might not exactly be right to play a hard-core military dude, but someone that talented would’ve done the movie a world of good. Someone who could be believable as a badass fighter, but still charming enough to guide us through the lunacy that is this entire movie. Someone who could have some fun with the material—who could look at all the accelerator suits and Celtic-language planes and underwater fortresses, and just crack a smile…or at least a very subtle one—G.I. Joe’s are soldiers—they shouldn’t be smiling too much anyway, right?

I read somewhere that Sam Worthington (the best part of “Terminator Salvation” and the star of James Cameron’s uber-epic this December, “Avatar”) was up for the part as well, but things didn’t fall through. That’s too bad—no offense to Tatum, but Worthington would’ve brought the movie (and the character) up another level. Judging by his work on “Terminator,” he would’ve nailed Duke’s action side during the big set pieces, while also sneaking in that necessary, sly bit of humor for the lighter moments in between (a vibe he gives off in all his interviews and his recent Comic-Con appearance).

I could be very wrong here, but this is my long train of thought from watching “G.I. Joe.” Shia LaBoeuf made “Transformers 2” better for me than it had a right to be, and that‘s just another indicator that actual talent is far more important than who looks right for the part. I would love for Channing Tatum to surprise me—to see him rise to the challenge, and lead the team in the inevitable sequel with a newfound gusto, instead of more bland machismo. By all means, I’d love to see him tackle some serious acting challenges as well—prove to us that he’s not a musclely, dancing once-trick pony; Ford, Fraser, Downey, Shia, Depp—all the actors I listed before proved that they have actual chops to back up their more popular roles. We’ll just have to see. The “G.I. Joe” series (as it most definitely will be soon) has definite potential, and could reach that level of just being an amusing, clever ride like the old Bond films or director Sommers’ own “The Mummy”…but it will need (besides a much better script) a leading man that clicks with its lively, somewhat-campy tone.

Either way, it got me thinking. Many people look down on respected actors for taking roles in giant blockbusters. But I like to believe that there’s that earnest 10-year-old in many of my favorite stars—at the end of the day, you know it’s pretty sweet to bring down the Cobra organization or defeat an evil, cursed Egyptian priest, or “choose wisely” and find the Holy Grail. It’s how you embrace it that’s the challenge. Fraser and Ford found that balance between giddy fun and commitment to character. Maybe someday Channing Tatum will too.

In the end, we could always use a great, charming, new adventure hero - after all, somebody has to eventually step in for Jack Sparrow, Indiana Jones, and Rick O'Connell when they retire their pirate hats and fedoras (not to mention compasses, whips, cutlasses, and dual hanguns). If you spent this whole post thinking: "Rusty, why the hell are you talking about "G.I. Joe"? Do you seriously have nothing better to think about?!" Very fair point. But, somewhat-crappy first movie aside, I honestly thought it had great potential. And while Duke might never be all that interesting, he could still, with a stronger script and performance, become a good long-term favorite for a whole new generation of 10-year-olds (and maybe the rest of us too).

Images courtesy of Universal Pictures, Paramount Pictures, and Hasbro.
Read more!