January 24, 2006

Magnum, P.I. - The Movie

Hollywood is reporting that a theatrical film of the TV show is in the works.

[Rawson Marshall] Thurber, who wrote and directed the hit comedy "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," is not making a spoof but rather something akin to the tone of the show, which mixed humor and danger. The story line for the film sees Magnum, with the help of his former military pals, searching for a missing buddy.
Call me sentimental but I can't think of a single reason for not bringing back the old cast, at least Tom Selleck. I don't know what they're planning but who else could possibly play Thomas Magnum?

tom_selleck.jpg

I mean, honestly, who?

Posted by: Gary at 03:36 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 118 words, total size 1 kb.

January 23, 2006

"Brokeback" Not Exactly Breaking The Box Office

Despite Variety's predictions that "Brokeback Mountain" could reach as high as number two this weekend, the film barely finished at number five ahead of Jim Carrey's remake of "Fun With Dick And Jane" but behind the new Queen Latifah comedy "Last Holiday". The indy love story about two gay cowboys isn't exactly "on fire" despite garnering so many Golden Globe awards last week.

If fact, the number one film this weekend, "Underworld: Evolution", earned more in its first three days than "Brokeback Mountain" managed to gross after five weeks of release. The reason? Kate Beckinsale is smokin' hot! That's what guys want to see.

Look, your average straight male isn't going to go see "Brokeback". And the critics will say it's due to homophobia. But the reality is that it's due to indifference. Your average Joe Six-pack just has no interest in seeing any love story, much less one that looks like a sausage convention. For all the buzz about this film, it's really nothing more than a chick flick. It's one for the wife or significant other to go see with her friends. Fair is fair. Would she go along with you dragging her to see "Hostel" (which BTW has also grossed more than "Brokeback" in less than half the time)? I don't think so.

Hey, do you have any idea what it takes for the Mrs. to drag me to ANY movie that's billed as a love story? If I'm going to go through the aggravation of getting a sitter, dealing with the crowds and plopping down $19 for us to go to the multiplex, it damn well better feature a sweet-looking lead actress (and a couple of decent-looking supporting actresses as well).

It should come as no surprise that "Brokeback" has limited appeal. But try as they might, the Hollywood elite are not going to convince the vast majority of men that they should appreciate this kind of film and if they don't that there is something wrong with them. One thing you can count on, however, is that the more the box office returns continue to underwhelm, the more likely that "Brokeback" is guaranteed an Oscar for "Best Picture".

That'll show those knuckle-dragging Neanderthals! Whatever, dude.

Posted by: Gary at 09:45 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 384 words, total size 2 kb.

January 04, 2006

Review: "V For Vendetta"

No I didn't see this crap. But "The Road Warrior" did a guest review over at the Conservative Film site Libertas. Not only does the movie completely suck but he makes a ton of great observations about how it's basically a huge Left-Wing paranoid fantasy, and explains how those on the Left are what they claim to fear. A great read.

Posted by: Gary at 05:00 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 69 words, total size 1 kb.

December 27, 2005

Munich Mastermind Slams Spielberg

After a futile attempt at trying to be nice to terrorists so they won't hate Israel anymore, director Steven Spielberg's self-proclaimed "prayer for peace" film, "Munich", is being castigated by the man who was responsible for the murder of the Israeli athletes in Munich during the 1972 Olympic Games.

Mohammed Daoud planned the Munich attack on behalf of PLO splinter group Black September, but did not take part and does not feature in the film.

He voiced outrage at not being consulted for the thriller and accused Spielberg of pandering to the Jewish state.

"If he really wanted to make it a prayer for peace he should have listened to both sides of the story and reflected reality, rather than serving the Zionist side alone," Daoud told Reuters by telephone from the Syrian capital, Damascus.

Daoud said he had not seen the film, which will only reach most screens outside the United States next month.

Trying to establish a moral equivalence between the Palestinian terrorists and the Mossad agents who saw to it that those terrorists couldn't kill any more Israelis, Spielberg made the film as a "can't we all just get along" gesture to the Palestinians hoping it would help smooth over their hurt feelings.

Whether or not it sinks in, he's finding our how useless a gesture it is.

Posted by: Gary at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 227 words, total size 2 kb.

December 19, 2005

Hollywood: Still Not "Getting It"

Tammy Bruce has an excellent post about the recent Golden Globe Nominations for Best Picture of 2005, titled "And Hollywood Wonders Why They're Failing".

I'll admit it. I always used to love going to the movies. But nowadays, considering all the hassles I have to deal with by going out to a multiplex - the parking, the lines, the tiny theaters, the obnoxious patrons, the commercials, etc. - if I'm going to see a movie it has to be something I really want to see. Throw in the continually dwindling number of opportunities that I have to actually go to the movies, being a father of three young kids (who I will not bring to a movie that isn't appropriate for them just because I can't get babysitting), and there is very little margin for error. That is to say, I can't afford to take a chance on a film unless I'm convinced in advance that it will be something I'll enjoy.

I think a lot of people over 30 have similiar constraints even if they don't have kids. They're just plain busy. So why does Hollywood continue to heavily promote films about subjects most moviegoers could care less about or that have no appeal to them? And why are they handing out awards to movies that don't find an audience beyond a bunch of elitist critcs? There really is a kind of cultural myopia in the motion picture industry - an attitude that turns up their noses at their customers and says "fine, if the unwashed masses don't appreciate our art then we can at least pat ourselves on the back and say how much we like it".

As Tammy Bruce observes:

Not only will we not go see films which insult us, we refuse to support an existential worldview. We happen to think life does matter, that decency is a good thing, and that people are inherently good, not bad. We also have stopped believing the lie that Americans are bad people. We looked away for 4 decades as that lie was spread, but that time is over.

So you can take your gay sheepherder, noble communist supporting reporters, big-business is evil, Americans are hopelessly and inherently corrupt and violent and unfaithful movies and go to Cannes where at least the Parisian set will love you. But that won't exactly pay the bills, will it?

It used to be whichever movie won the top awards guaranteed boffo box office. Not any longer. The Golden Globe (the 'foreign' press contingent) and the Oscar people are going to find that their nights of orgiastic self-congratulation won't get them much, if anything, any more.

Movies should be something you escape to, not from.

Posted by: Gary at 02:40 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 460 words, total size 3 kb.

December 15, 2005

I Saw "King Kong"!

Here's my review:

king kong review.jpg

In a word - "spectacular". Peter Jackson makes movies with the wonder and imagination of a child. And this film has got everything in it. You'll laugh out loud, you'll cry like a baby and your heart will race. Let me start off about the length, just over three hours. If you're one of those people who has an attention span of a five year old, you're gonna bitch about it. We don't get to the gorilla until almost half-way through. But the time Jackson spends leading up to this part is rich with character development, gorgeous scenery (which you easily forget is almost all computer-generated) and plot development.

If you can allow yourself to get immersed in the film, you'll enjoy every minute of it. Unfortunately for me I had some idiot woman and her young daughter sitting behind me gabbing away as if they were sitting in their own living room. It kept breaking my concentration and pissing me off. I think one of the downsides to home entertainment systems is that there is a whole generation of kids who experience so much of their movie viewing in the home setting that they don't learn that you're supposed to shut your pie-hole when you actually go to a theater full of people. Not to mention the fact that most parents exercise zero judgement with their kids and take them to movies that are totally inapropriate. I often wonder what the hell some of these people are thinking, and then it dawns on me - they DON'T.

The bottom line is that this is one of those rare situations where seeing the movie is worth putting up with all the crap - the overpriced tickets and food, the crowds, the lines, the endless commentary from people sitting near you. It really is. Now I'm faced with a dilemma. My nine year old really wants to see it, but I'm not sure if that's the best idea. There are some pretty scary moments here.

Now if your kid has seen the "Jurassic Park" movies, there aren't any scenes with dinosaurs that are worse than anything they've already seen. Really the two most intense scenes involve the savages on Skull Island and a part where the rescue party is attacked by huge creepy-crawlies. The islanders are the stuff of nightmares, and could induce some in a child that is prone to them. The giant insect scene is pretty gross. If your kid hates bugs, forget it. They'll be traumatized. There are even some giant leech/slug-like things that literally devour the head and extremities of one of the characters while he struggles to escape. Again, this is the kind of gross stuff that Jackson loves to put on screen but it's probably one of the reasons that the movie earned a PG-13.

But beyond the scary parts, if you have a child that gets upset when they see a small dead animal you also have a problem. The emotion that Kong conveys, especially towards the end of the movie is powerful. His nonverbal interactions with Naomi Watts - in the NY scenes in particular - really make the audience connect to him. In the final scene atop the Empire State Building, I saw grown men with their eyes welling up. A particulary sensitive child might become just as upset as if he or she lost someone close to them. So it really depends on the kid - their maturity, what they've been exposed to thus far and how well they are able to put in perspective that it's all just make-believe.

As for me, I'm leaning toward taking him but I think it would be a good idea to prepare him in advance for things he might want to hide his eyes from. We'll see.

Anyway, "King Kong" definitely lives up to the hype. I give it an enthusiastic thumbs-up!

Posted by: Gary at 06:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

November 28, 2005

Film Saluting "Deuce Four" Is A Go...

David of IsReallyCool.com gives the lowdown of a film inspired by the writings of blogger Michael Yon that will portray the heroism of U.S. Soldiers in Iraq. And it will star my favorite Action Movie actor, Bruce Willis.

The film will depict the exploits of the heavily-decorated Deuce Four (1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Division) in Mosul. Willis will play Lieutenant-Colonel Erik Kurilla. Michael Yon's post of the homecoming banquet for these soldiers is here. Willis, who was in attendance at the ball, gave a speech praising the work of our military and expressed frustration at the negative way Hollywood usually presents them.

It's great to see guys like Bruce Willis using their box-office clout to help bring a film like this to fruition.

h/t: Ace

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

October 11, 2005

New Bond Is Blonde

Daniel Craig New Bond.jpg
Huh? A toe-headed James Bond? That's right, Daniel Craig has been tapped to play the British Secret Agent in the upcoming "Casino Royale".

Look as far as I'm concerned 007 has been going down hill since Roger Moore left the franchise (although Connery is still my favorite). But this looks like a bigger bonehead move than the Miers pick. Ian Fleming must be turning in his grave!

But, hey. What do I know? I didn't think I could get used to a blonde Daisy Duke.

Posted by: Gary at 02:04 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 93 words, total size 1 kb.

<< Page 2 of 2 >>
39kb generated in CPU 0.16, elapsed 0.2059 seconds.
122 queries taking 0.1747 seconds, 247 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.