Thursday, April 29, 2010
J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg are teaming up for an untitled film that is going to be written and directed by Abrams. My guess is Spielberg is part of it in a producing capacity, but what I find intriguing about it is that the film is being described as a tip of the hat to the Spielberg-films of the late '70s and early '80s, like Close Encounters or E.T. The word is that the film will be about an ordinary, everyday person who gets wrapped up within extraordinary circumstances, possibly dealing with other-worldly beings. All of that is just the rumor right now, but supposedly it's an original script from Abrams that he wrote as an homage to the Beard and Spielberg I guess liked it cause Paramount Pictures is going ahead with the film with a fall start date.
Personally, I'm excited about this. Spielberg is my favorite filmmaker of all-time, and the period in which Abrams is trying to recapture is where Spielberg made some of the finer films in his filmography. While it is a shame that Abrams didn't hand off the script for Spielberg to direct (which for all we know could have been how Spielberg got involved in the first place but just declined and let Abrams direct), still it's awesome cause I love Abrams as a director. M:I:III was fun, and Star Trek was just amazing. I really can't wait for this, plus it's another original big Hollywood movie.
Speaking of original big Hollywood movie's, here's the latest poster for Chris Nolan's film, Inception:
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The first of the Summer films hits this Friday! Not really, but Friday is a pretty big day for me. That night my latest film, Heaven's Touch, is premiering in front of an audience, and part of me is nervous, and the other part of me is excited. By this point, the film isn't mine, it's up to the audience to decide the fate of the film, I've done all I can do, and my own thoughts on how it has turned out doesn't really matter. But I will be honest, for those who do wanna know what I think about it, I think it's good, not great, but good. It was an ambitious project from the start and we never quite got there, we just ran into limitations of budget, location, resources, techonology, you name it we were limited by it at one point or another. Regardless, it turned out well for a no-budget film, so if you wanna check it out head on down to UAB (University of Alabama at Birmingham) this Friday night at 7 p.m. The screening will be held at the Hulsey Center on 13th Street South in the Recital Hall on the bottom floor. Here's the address if you wanna google it:
950 13th St. South, Birmingham, AL, 35205.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
You know, I was a pretty huge fan of the first Iron Man film. Robert Downey, Jr., perfectly suited the role of Tony Stark, and they opened it up for unlimited possibilities by having Stark revealing his alter ego to the world at the end of the film. I'll be honest, I was never real familiar with the Iron Man comics, but then again, I've never cared all that much for The Avengers either, if I was being honest, so to me I'm not an obsessive fanboy who cries foul if they do anything that deviates from the source material.
I'll be honest once again, I'm extremely pumped to see Iron Man 2 come May 7th, it looks to be fun, entertaining, and should pack that punch you want out of a Summer action movie. With all that said, the first reviews for the film are slowly trickling out, and as I predicted, many critics left the theaters scratching their heads, while other critics who were just in it for a good time enjoyed it, and those that were familiar with the comics adored it.
Perhaps one shouldn't go into this one expecting another The Dark Knight, but then again I never really was expecting that from this one, I mean the first Iron Man came out the same Summer as The Dark Knight, and even though I liked both, Batman was the clear victor in terms of filmmaking. What I expect from Iron Man 2 is a good time at the movies with some nice Marvel Easter Eggs thrown in. I'm not familiar enough with the comics to want much else, and really, what I said above is how I simply felt about the first Iron Man, so if the sequel can just do that and tell a story that actually makes sense, I'll be cool.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
A movie I really wanna see right now is The Good, The Bad, The Weird, currently out in theaters, but not in Alabama. Living here in Alabama means it's a nigh impossibility to see it till it comes to store shelves on Blu-Ray or DVD. Limited releases are my least favorite thing in the film industry, they deprive us less privileged who do not live in the big film hotspots to see some lesser known films. Even still, this post could be taken two ways, while it always takes forever to see these lesser known gems, it can also be frustrating to have to wait to see the latest piece of virtuoso filmmaking from someone like Spielberg or Scorsese. Just saying. Anyways, look at the awesomely hilarious trailer for The Good, The Bad, The Weird:
I'm not a huge fan of Will Ferrell comedies, but this one got a chuckle out of me in the trailer, primarily cause of Mark Wahlberg and Samuel L. Jackson. It's made by the same team that made Anchorman, so if you love that movie (which is stupid, but at the least enjoyable) then you'll probably rush out and see this one opening night. Here's the trailer for The Other Guys:
Friday, April 23, 2010
This is a subject I've been mulling over a lot recently. The question as to what makes an auteur? Am I an auteur? I really don't know.
My common thought of an auteur is someone who controls every part of the creative aspect of their film. I've often thought that's how films should be made, and I was opposed to anything that would make a creative change to the vision of the auteur's story. But a small change in vision can be welcome, can't it? I used to think no, but now I'm thinking yes.
The auteur line of distinction is so blurry, it's pretty much subjective to any filmgoer, cause I mean, if you truly prescribe by the auteur theory, then technically someone like Michael Bay is an auteur. The more I think about it, the more confused I get. I personally don't think I'm an auteur, I don't have enough of a distinctive style to really be called as such, but I have too much of an individualized opinion to really be a slave to the studios either. I'm trying to find a balance. The two main things my focus is now on as a filmmaker is to try and be more open to suggestion while also developing a more distinctive style.
When I think about it, auteurs are generally pretentious, so I don't wanna be an auteur, I wanna make studio films with legit budgets, but I don't want to be a slave to the studios and just make generic pieces of cinema. I've gotta find my way as a filmmaker. I think a large part of my problem is I try to emulate other directors too much rather than just channeling what is visually fascinating to me to the screen. Then, I've just gotta be more susceptible to change, and learn what is worth fighting for and what's not, cause not all creative decisions are significant enough to get in an all out argument over. I do all that, and I think I'll be fine.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
So with recent announcements of the old vanguard of filmmakers like Scorsese, and even more esoteric filmmakers like Werner Herzog, making their next projects in 3-D, it's refreshing to find a few in Hollywood that are still opposed to the third dimension.
From a recent interview about his next film Inception, Christopher Nolan was cordial, but pretty much said he isn't all that interested in 3-D. It shouldn't come as a big surprise that director Chris Nolan (The Dark Knight) isn't a big fan of 3-D, primarily because he favors old school tricks over new school, but it's nice that there are actual folks in the industry that have some clout who refuse to believe 3-D is the next big thing. Nolan is known for his minimal use of CG, and for never converting to digital cinema, which I think is Nolan's actual hold-up for filming on 3-D to be honest, but there is more.
Cinematical.com recently interviewed Nolan's longtime cinematographer, Wally Pfister. Pfister was asked about the possibilities of filming the third Batman film in 3-D, and while he never flat-out bashed 3-D, the same as Nolan, he did say in essence that he thinks it's a fad, and he said something very intriguing that I had yet to hear before, was that him and Nolan were actually asked to shoot Inception in 3-D, and shot the studio down.
I've just gotta say, go Chris and Wally. I believe 3-D is merely a new fad, I don't think it's the big gamechanger as so many in the industry would like you to believe, and I'm just glad that I'm not the only one who hasn't drunk the kool-aid and gone over to the dark side.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Well, I can't say I didn't have a bad feeling about this one. James Bond's 23rd adventure, slated for release in 2012, and starring Daniel Craig once more as 007, has been postponed and put on hold till a future time that has not been specified. The Bond producers were obviously struggling with potential financing with no real solid word about who will buy-out MGM studios, and with Bond being MGM's flagship franchise, that obviously was the deterioration of this one. It's a shame if you ask me, with Sam Mendes directing (American Beauty, Road to Perdition), I had high hopes for this one. The rumors for Bond girls was everywhere from Olivia Wilde to Freida Pinto (Slumdog Millionaire). Perhaps it's a good thing, when I've been hearing about ordered rewrites of the script, and not to mention Quantum of Solace kind of suffered from a weak script anyways, so maybe this was for the best. Here's hoping the Bond train gets going again, cause it would be a shame for this to be 007's end after 22 films, but I doubt that, though it could be it for Daniel Craig's involvement, depending upon how long this hiatus lasts.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
I know that the first half of the year is typically where studios dump all of their product that has no other place so that they can try to turn a small profit before it goes to DVD within just 2-3 months, but seriously, this year seems to be one of the worst, with average blockbuster-fare like Alice in Wonderland taking the highest grossing spot of the year thus far. Thank goodness it's almost Summer, where we can hope things will turn around.
The Summer movie season will get a pretty good kick-off with Iron Man 2, most likely. While there is some skepticism as to whether or not the film will deliver in the same capacity as the first, it still looks like a good time at the cinema. After that there are a lot of question marks filtered throughout this Summer. While I love the Prince of Persia video games, the film just doesn't seem to be clicking; perhaps it will be a surprise, but I'm not sure. As well, Pixar's latest offering, Toy Story 3 has yet to elicit any real excitement from me, and to be honest, I'm worried this might be Pixar's first misfire (aside from Cars, of course).
This year is just so weak at the moment in terms of top notch cinema, and what is coming out doesn't give one much to look forward to. Both Tron Legacy and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part 1 don't hit till Winter of this year, leaving me feeling very cold at the moment. The only thing to really hype for this Summer is Chris Nolan's Inception, which looks astounding, but other than that there is nothing. While the indie-comedy, The Kids Are All Right has a July release, and Stallone's big action-fest, The Expendables, round out the Summer with a nice flair, neither of these look to be year's best material to me. Maybe I'm just sad and heartbroken because the highest grade I have given a 2010 film so far this year has been a B+. I really hope Iron Man 2 can at least earn an A to break this string, cause otherwise, this is a bad start-off for a new decade of cinema.
While I'm subsiding off of catching up on some classics I've never seen before and a few 2009 films I still have yet to see, Hollywood really needs to get their game on and deliver, cause audiences wont wait forever.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Few movies can actually have so much blood, carnage, and absolute political incorrectness, and actually get away with it, and Kick-Ass is one of those films. I'll get to the bottom line, while Kick-Ass is not the greatest superhero film of all-time, and is not as much of a satire of the whole genre as I would have wished, it's just such a good time at the movies, I completely forgot about anything other than just being entertained.
The film is a what if scenario. What if superheroes were real? In a way though, the superheroes in this film are not your average superheroes, more like vigilantes, like the Punisher and such. They kill, they don't just bring the crooks to justice, which is one thing that irks me a touch about the film, but not so much that I didn't enjoy it.
It's all about a gawky teen, named Dave, who decides one day to take his love for superheroes, and put it into practicality by becoming one himself. One thing that the film does, is it doesn't allow Dave (a.k.a. Kick-Ass) to become Batman or the Punisher, he remains as Peter Parker would have had he never been bitten by that spider and still tried to be a superhero. Like the great hero Spider-man, the film is identifiable to just about anyone who grew up as a comic book nerd, like myself, which is partly why the film is a joy to watch.
Like Spider-man, Kick-Ass has his Mary Jane in Katie, and unlike the comic, they actually allow Dave and Katie to hook up in the end, which I like a lot more to be honest. In both the comic and the film, Dave and Katie become best friends cause Katie thinks Dave is gay, the difference is, in the film when he reveals he isn't gay, Katie wants to be his girlfriend, and in the comic she calls him a perverted freak, essentially. For me, this actually gave the film an added layer of emotional connection, maybe because I am a hopeless romantic, but it made what could have been a mindless, raunchy, gore-fest, something that actually had a beating heart at its core.
The film is raunchy at times, actually a lot of the times, but it never seems to be as raunchy as something like Superbad or Knocked Up. It's just the right amount of humor at the right times to make you laugh, and most of these laughs are generated by the pint-sized, 11-year-old assassin Hit-Girl (played marvelously by Chloe Moretz) and her dad, Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage, who does his best to be Adam West). Hit-Girl has all of the great one-liners in the film, and her and Big Daddy are really the only two superheroes in the film anyways that actually seem to know what their doing, but their story also lends an emotional core to the final act of the film that I wont spoil by divulging, but it makes the action at the end of the film actually feel as if it was worth something.
I'll just say it, I enjoyed the movie more than I enjoyed the comic. The movie actually allowed itself to have more fun, and that's what I liked about it. The film reminded me so much as to why I got into comics as a kid in the first place. I didn't get into comics to have thought provoked, or nothing of that ilk. I got into comics to be entertained, emotionally charged, and taken to a different world for a short period of time, which is what Kick-Ass does exceptionally well. It is over-the-top and kind of cheesy, but it's enjoyable for the kid inside of me to watch. I mean, Hit-Girl and Kick-Ass flying over New York City in a jetpack is so cheesy, but it was my favorite sequence of the film. Or what about the badguy getting blown to bits by a bazooka!?!
Ultimately, if any faults come with the film, it is that the story kind of lags in the middle sections a bit, and it also missed out on a great many opportunities to be smarter than your average comic book film and actually be a genuine satire and not just another cliche' comic book film or spoof. But I can't really hold any of this against it, I had fun watching it, and while I don't think at the end of the year I'll really remember it all that much, for a night on the town, it was well worth my $8.25 ticket.
I give Kick-Ass a B+!
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Variety columnist, Peter Bart, tossed up this thought last week in an op-ed he wrote about director Christopher Nolan's new film, Inception, and all the secrecy in which the film has been shrouded within. In a nutshell, Bart got on a rant about Nolan being so secretive and treating himself as an auteur, when Bart was arguing that the auteur was a dying breed, in fact dead depending upon who you ask. He says the auteur theory has now been replaced by the studios desire for franchises. What I want to try figuring out is the central question, is the auteur dead, and if not, who are these modern day auteurs?
For those not in the know, the word auteur is derived from the French word meaning author. It was coined by French film critic and future filmmaker, Francois Truffaut in the late 1950s, when Truffaut compared a film director to the author of a novel. The director creates the world and space, so quintessentially, the director is the source of a film. This theory spun off into widespread popularity throughout the '60s overseas with folks like Jean Luc Godard and Truffaut himself, but it wasn't until the '70s, when American films started to prescribe by this theory, and what began was quite possibly the most fruitful decade of American cinema. The '70s saw the rise of young auteurs like: Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, and Robert Altman. But starting back in about the '80s, the designation of the auteur started to crumble away as some of these auteurs got richer than the others, and studio control became more and more prominent again. This basically pits us in modern day, with Bart and his comments. So is the auteur dead, or is he just in hiding?
I personally feel it shows ignorance on Bart's behalf to even assume that the auteur is dead in the first place. From the '70s scene we still have guys like: Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, and George Lucas, out there making films; regardless as to whether you like their current output, they still pursue personal filmmaking and deliver their films with an undeniable authorial license. Then, there is a new vanguard of filmmakers like: Christopher Nolan, Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry, Kevin Smith, the Coen Brothers, James Cameron, Quentin Tarrantino, Danny Boyle, and many more, that can all fight for the right to be called auteurs. The films of Chris Nolan play like one long movie if you watch them back-to-back, same goes for the works of Kevin Smith or Tarrantino. If that is not an authorial stamp to where their style is recognizable in all of their works, then I don't know what is? If this is so, what has spurred Bart's comments against the auteur?
Once again, I think it's Bart showing ignorance. Since when did studios and the auteur become synonymous? They never have been. If a studio was an auteur, then why is there an auteur theory in the first place? The fact of the matter is, even when you look back to the great auteur works of the '70s, more than half of the great auteur films were made outside the studio system, just distributed by Hollywood, kind of like today's independent film market ( Apocalypse Now, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, etc.). While there were a few big films from the auteur generation of the '70s, like Star Wars, The Godfather, or Close Encounters of the Third Kind, I just have to say, look at the past two years of filmmaking with The Dark Knight, Inglourious Basterds, and Avatar, to name a few. All movies made by modern day auteurs, and you know what, all of those films made over $100 million to boot, two of which are in the top three highest grossing films of all-time.
So it has nothing to do with money, cause in the '70s you had just as many auteur films made for niche markets like today. I mean, seriously, Michel Gondry films don't appeal to everyone, but they have their niche, much like the works of Altman or Cassavettes from the '70s. And if you want to argue that franchise films are ruining cinema, just look at the disaster films of the '70s, that were made alongside the serious work of auteurs. There is room for both on the marketplace. So what made Bart think the auteur is dead?
I think Bart, like the rest of Hollywood, has been swept up within the maelstrom of the franchise. At the current moment, the studios have a touch more weight than your average filmmaker, which is why the auteur theory is kind of subdued at the moment. The studios are stable at the moment with stuff like 3-D and whatnot, but eventually the newness of 3-D will wear off, and when it does, the studios will have to revert back to storytelling to make some money. It goes in cycles, and we're just in the most frustrating part of that cycle right now. I think in many ways, the auteur has transformed from the Hollywood big shot, to more like a modern day playwright or novelist. They're still around, doing their thing, making quality work, and when the time is right, when the right talent has lined up, the auteur will rise again as a prominent force in the film industry, and until that happens, we just have to sit back and suck it up.
Monday, April 12, 2010
For those, like myself, who have been missing some good Conando action to add to the late night line-up, do not fret, cause Conan O'Brien will be returning to television screens this November. The show is currently untitled, but it will be a late night talk show, just like his previous two endeavors, Late Night and The Tonight Show. The show will air on TBS, of all places, and it will bump the George Lopez Show back to a midnight time slot, and Conan will be Lopez's lead in (which if you haven't seen the George Lopez Show, it's actually kind of funny). From what I understand though, was that this move was actually Lopez's idea and not the networks.
I think this is a pretty big win for basic cable and TBS in general, seeing as how the rumors were that Conan was in talks with Fox to bring his shtick to their network. One can assume that by being on basic cable, Conan will have fewer inhibitors and have a broader range of creative freedom, which for a big Conan fan as myself, it should restore Conan to his glory days before The Tonight Show.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
There are few films that are triumphs of both the imagination and are superb glances at our own humanity, and Akira Kurosawa's One Wonderful Sunday is one of those films.
The film tells the story of a young engaged couple in post-World War II Tokyo. Japan is still rebuilding after the war, and it is experiencing tough economic times. We follow this young engaged couple, Yuzo and Masako, as they try to go on a date on one ordinary Sunday with only 35 yen to spend, which even in those times was next to nothing. It's the story of them trying to find hope and fulfill their dreams within a time filled with such despair and hopelessness.
I'll be honest, this film was one of those by Kurosawa-san that I had never even heard of. While I've heard of Seven Samurai, Rashomon, Ikiru, etc., I had never heard of this particular Kurosawa gem. In many ways, it probably has most in common with his films like No Regrets for Our Youth or Ikiru, in that it is a film about the good of humanity, not to mention they are all set within Modern Japan (at least at the time it was Modern Japan). There are many American film critics that call One Wonderful Sunday Frank Capra-esque in its style and tone, but I must argue that in labeling it as such, it just shows how few Kurosawa films they've really seen. It's an Akira Kurosawa-esque film, and not the other way around.
One Wonderful Sunday is a cinematic masterpiece, I mean, visually it's a marvel to look at. Made in the late '40s, when films were still essentially dressed up stage plays, Kurosawa made a film that was visually on par with the works of modern day masters like Scorsese or Spielberg. Of course, the film harnesses an emotional gut punch as well. It is a film about dreamers and those who wish to believe in love; it is definitely a film for hopeless romantics such as myself. Of course, one should not be fooled into thinking that this film is a happy-go-lucky romp.
The film starts in frivolity, and as the day of the characters progress, their day gets worse and worse and it actually becomes quite emotionally powerful as Masako, who has been busy trying to lift Yuzo's spirits all day long, finally breaks, and it is up to Yuzo to lift her up in the end. In this sense, the film is actually realistic. The film is not so hyper-stylized that it does not have flourishes of realism, and this is where I think the film kind of matches those of the French New Wave. It's just sentimental enough for hopeless romantics such as myself to adore it, but the film is deeply rooted in realism. Never does something happen that it feels as if it transpired merely because the script said so, plus the film is packed with an edge that Hollywood films from this time tend to gloss over. The film does cuss, among other things, but these things all help to allow this film to be classified as one of the first Modern Films.
Most importantly, this film tells one not to give up on their hopes and dreams, as evidenced at the end when Yuzo conducts an imaginary orchestra for Masako, or when they pretend to own their own coffee shop in a derelict, bombed out building, it is simply beautiful and breathtaking. This is my favorite Akira Kurosawa film I've ever seen, and is somewhere on my list of favorite films of all-time in general. This is a masterpiece, and as Masako says as she addresses the camera near the end of the film, it's about lovers.
I'll just say this, this film was so hidden I couldn't even find a trailer for it, just a short clip from the film itself.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Okay, this is what I'm considering a power post. It's been a busy past few days on my front, editing my latest film, Heaven's Touch. The film is shaping up good, but the cursed wind created a few audio problems for one scene, where we shot in a wide open field and it just happened to be like 10 mph winds the entire shoot. It will all hopefully work out, and we're pretty close to begin after effects work and scoring. While I've been busy this week, it's also been a pretty busy week in terms of movie news, so that is why I'm kind of packaging all of this info. into one post.
One of the more interesting things that was finally confirmed this week, is Harrison Ford's involvement with Iron Man director, Jon Favreau's adaptation of the Vertigo comic, Cowboys & Aliens. The film takes place in the Wild West and is essentially the battle between Cowboys & Indians except the Indians are replaced by Invading Aliens. I'm real apathetic to the premise, but the cast and crew for this film are shaping up nicely. Ford will be joining Daniel Craig and Olivia Wilde in the film, and as mentioned it is being directed by Jon Favreau, one of the finer studio directors currently playing the game. While I'm still baffled as to how convincing the story will come across in live-action, I gotta say I love the idea of Ford portraying a grizzled old cowboy, I mean, it's kind of as if Han Solo is gonna get transported to the Wild West. There are rumors he might be the bad guy in the film, and if so, that could be an intriguing twist for one of Hollywood's greatest action heroes of all-time.
Though, one thing I'm just purely giddy about was the announcement that a sequel to the spy comedy, Johnny English, is in the works. Johnny English 2 will bring back Rowan Atkinson's awesome super spy, Johnny English, an incompetent version of James Bond. I'm typically not a fan of stupid comedy, but there was something about the original that was just hilarious to me. Maybe it was the British-ness. While the first film was not a hit in the States, overseas it made a fair amount of money, which is why it has probably taken so long to finally get the greenlight, but this is pretty much for real. The script is written, a director is attached, Atkinson is on board, and the film is set to begin filming this Summer, so all in all, I couldn't be any more excited than I am right now.
One interesting thing I heard about today, that while isn't movie news but T.V. news, it still has to do with one of Hollywood's biggest figures, director Steven Spielberg. Spielberg is overseeing the development of a new mini-series on Discovery Channel called Future Earth. Like the Planet Earth mini-series, this will be similar, but it will accumulate predictions from some of the world's leading scholars and futurists as to what the world will be like 25-100 years in the future. Animation will be used to date our world into the future, and I just think this sounds like a fascinating idea, it's definitely one that I'm intrigued to see, here's just hoping it can live up to the bar set by Planet Earth. Regardless, it's always fun to predict, and I think it's definitely bold to try and predict the future of our entire planet, I just really hope it wont be a bunch of doomsday scenarios.
Finally, I'm gonna wrap up today with the trailer for one of the bigger indies at this year's Sundance Film Festival, The Kids Are All Right. The film will be released in theaters July 7th by Focus Features. It definitely gives off the quirky indie vibe in the trailer, but from what I've read, the film actually has a ton of heart and many are pegging it as an early Oscar contender for next year's Academy Awards, in particular in screenwriting and acting for Julianne Moore. I personally think it looks kind of funny, while I'm not sure I see all of the Oscar buzz in this trailer, I definitely want to see this film. Check out the trailer below:
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Marvel seems to be on the ball as of late, at least about getting their comic franchises to the big screen. As was their hope when they became Marvel Studios and incorporated with Disney, more and more of their lesser known comic book properties are going to make it to the big screen, and one such property is the comic, Runaways. Unlike many lesser known comics being made, I've actually heard of this one, which is why I'm talking about it.
Runaways tells the story of a group of teenagers with superpowers who discover that their parents are all super villains, so they band together and run away. It's a unique premise, and I've actually read the first few issues and I kind of like it, it still seems a touch generic Marvel to me, but it might pick up. Regardless, the premise is fresh and ripe enough to make a fascinating film. My biggest fear is that the film will be too much like Disney's own Sky High and wont retain any of the adult material within the comic, I mean the comic is more kid-friendly than some, but it's still PG-13 material. With the tapping of Peter Sollett (Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist) as director, it seems as if it will retain some of its edge, but I am now afraid that the film will be too hipster in aesthetic. Oh, well. We'll just have to wait and see on this one.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A new trailer for Sylvester Stallone's action flick, The Expendables, that is like any middle school-kids dream action fest, has hit the net. The Expendables tells the tale of a group of mercenaries kicking butt and taking names, starring all of the big names of the action movie genre over the past two decades: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jett Li, Stone Cold Steve Austin, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, and the governator himself, Arnold. I've gotta say, this movie looks awesome. Will it be a fantastic time at the movies? Most likely, and the fact that it is coming out towards the end of the summer will just make it the perfect flick to cap off the summer movie season. Check out the latest trailer below, which is just pure awesomeness: