Recently in Movies Category

Sword of the Stranger -- A Lone Wolf and a Cub. And Some Kid.

| | Comments (0)
swordofthestrangerbanner.jpgSword of the Stranger, at a glance, is kind of a tough sell. The average person who's interested in anime could easily look at its synopsis, and jump to the semi-logical conclusion that it's not worth their time because of how generic it could possibly be. It's one of the reasons - but not one of the biggest reasons - why anime isn't as popular nowadays, especially outside of Japan. But to pass on this movie for this reason would be a big mistake: It's actually quite different from the usual samurai-themed anime.

And that's precisely what stands out about the movie; it's a successful attempt at taking a predictable concept and making it nearly unpredictable through the actions of its characters and diversifying the happenings in the setting. It also has necessities like character development and a well-developed plot to keep anyone who isn't in for the ride for the inevitable samurai battles that ensue over the course of the movie. And for anyone interested in those, it has them too; it has a nice mixture of every element it needs.

Sword of the Stranger takes place during the Sengoku period in Japan (aka the era of the Warring States), and shows us the story of a boy named Kotaro and his dog. For some reason, a mysterious group of men are chasing after him, and they've been tracking his route of escape throughout Japan. Given the state that Japan, its citizens, and its warriors were under at the time, it probably isn't an ideal environment for a boy running around, especially when there's a bounty on his head.

swordofthestrangerpic1_011810.jpgThe endearing story of a boy and his dog...

As Kotaro is wandering through a village, some of the soldiers pursuing him manage to catch up because of some innocent and frightened pedestrians who felt they had no choice but to reveal their location; regular people who did it for either money or their life. How lucky for Kotaro that a nameless, mysterious warrior arises from the house they run into, and the man defeats the soldiers with minimal effort.  The guy may be homeless and he takes random jobs for money, but he sure fights well; something which suggests to the viewer that he's more than what the lets on.

And it's the bonding between Kotaro and the nameless warrior that emotionally charges the film. (He's referred to as "Nanashi," which means "nameless" in Japanese.) A good portion of the first half of the film is dedicated to developing the two characters, but throughout that you'll also get a glimpse of the nameless swordsman's past, and the politics occurring around Japan. It's not too much that you won't be able to follow it, but its inherent happenings are something you'll want to pay attention to.

swordofthestrangerpic2_011810.jpg...and plenty of intriguing-though-light political intrigue.

A shame the film could lose a bunch of viewers during its character development time, because they might feel that it gets a little long in the tooth with its penchant for all character development and minimal action. That would be a shame, because the creators of Sword of the Stranger not only wanted to craft a stylish samurai epic, but also a piece of work where you could care deeply for the characters it presents through tragic back-stories. It takes all of the time it needs to, and doesn't take any more time than it needs to.

In fact, the time it takes to tell its entire tale is a blessing in disguise, especially for the story it's aiming for. It actually manages to cover quite a bit within its 101 minute run time. A problem with too many movies these days is that they run way too long without justifying the necessity of that length, as far too many people associate value with length.

With this being a 2007 movie produced in HD, unsurprisingly the animation is beautiful and the picture quality is top notch. These qualities are usually tertiary concerns compared to more important aspects like the story and sound, but just because it's less important doesn't mean it doesn't need to be there. This movie isn't just some brainless samurai flick, so don't expect swordfights every few minutes with minimal justification. They only happen when the need arises, and when they do, they're a sight to behold. You can tell a lot of money was put into this, because it doesn't cut any corners with the animation.

swordofthestrangerpic3_011810.jpgBut yes, moments of badassery are a prerequisite for movies like this, regardless of how deep they intend to delve.

The English dub is pretty acceptable for what it is, with some pretty quality acting from The Ocean Group. The thing is, English dubs tend to be pretty difficult to produce for movies that are well steeped in Japanese history, and it kind of makes the Japanese version feel more authentic. But there's another angle presented here that makes dubbing it even more tricky than usual. Sword of the Stranger presents a story that involves both Japanese and Chinese at war with each other, and each perspective is provided in their respective languages. In a dub that replaces any lines that aren't English in English, that sense of authenticity is lost on the viewer.  Thus, I highly recommend that you watch it in Japanese (featuring Japanese and Chinese) with subtitles.

If you're interested in knowing how someone can take a generic setting and story and make it feel original, Sword of the Stranger is what you've been waiting for. Heck, even if you don't, you should at least check it out. The most appealing aspect of the movie is that it offers something for everyone. You want a good story? It has that. You want stylish and admittedly improbable action sequences? Well, it has plenty of those too (though hopefully you don't find character development too obtrusive). It basically raises the standard for what we should expect from a samurai anime.

Screen captures courtesy of Hundland.org. Because unfortunately I lack the ability to take screen caps from a Blu-Ray disc.

Alvin 2 movie banner.jpg

I've found that entertaining movies make me eat popcorn very quickly.  Although 2012 was chock full of problems, I consumed a decent sized bag of popcorn during the first 3/5 of the movie.  I had fun making fun of the movie.  A similar thing happened with The Princess and the Frog, I consumed a lot of popcorn while enjoying a refreshingly new Disney movie.  But it's the truly entertaining movies that make me set the popcorn aside, and by the time I was finished watching Alvin & the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel, including the secret post-credits end scene,* I still had some popcorn left.  The Squeakquel is much shorter than 2012 was, yes, but I also bought a much smaller bag of popcorn, one that I should've been able to burn through rather quickly.  I also barely touched the drink I purchased.  But be warned: although I found it to be entertaining, I can see how this movie can also suck.

This movie is pretty much a high school musical.  Er, a musical set in a high school.  There, that sounds better.  It even has a plot that could've been rewritten slightly to accommodate a completely human cast and retitled High School Musical 4.  A series of events occur which cause a famous boy band to start going to a local school, and then they learn that the school's music department is a victim of budget cuts, and they'll have to enter a battle of the bands competition between various schools where the winning school gets some of their funding back.  Not only that, but there's a competition within the school itself between the boy band and an aspiring all-girl band who both want to compete at the event.  In the end, it's a standard happy ending for all, where all the bad guys of the movie get their just desserts and all the good guys live happily ever after (at least until they announce a third movie).**

By now, it's very clear to me that this and the previous movie represent a complete reboot in the Chipmunks continuity, just like what Star Trek, Casino Royale and Batman Begins did to their respective continuities; not just an updated remake like The Italian Job, Ocean's Eleven and The Thomas Crown Affair.  And yet this movie felt like an extended episode of the 80's series, whereas the 2007 movie felt more like a veiled criticism of the music industry disguised as a Chipmunks movie.

Those who have seen the original series (or maybe just the first movie) know how ridiculous some of the stories could be.  The 80's series had its moments, but the first movie set the precedent: would you really expect a bunch of kids, especially famous ones like the Chipmunks and the Chipettes, to be able to take care of themselves while they're on their way around the world piloting a pair of hot air balloons?  Hot Air Henry had all sorts of problems during his short, accidental flight.  Not to mention that it would be all over the entertainment news if they did.***

Even on their albums, the Chipmunks demonstrated a capability to do ridiculous and amazing things.  They never showed much interest in school, so when the roof was being fixed for some reason that wasn't specified, the boys sang "I Love A Rainy Night" and somehow summoned a thunderstorm that was so severe, it caused probably the worst flooding their hometown had ever seen, all within the span of a couple minutes.  They even swiped a rocket*^ and managed to launch it without anyone able to stop them and sang "Rocket Man" when Dave wanted them to return it.  And while singing "Ho Ho Ho", they seemed to demonstrate a psychic ability to simultaneously come up with the same improvised lyrics (either that, or they secretly rewrote the lyrics while Dave wasn't looking) and sing them perfectly in three part harmony.

For the 2007 movie, a more down to earth story was written, although you still had to stretch logic in order to make it work, and you had to try your best to ignore the way Ian made all music producers look bad.  Whoever wrote the movie must've been fired or something, because like I said before, the writing for the Squeakquel resembles some of the old 80's material while remaining set within the new, updated Chipmunks universe.

Case in point, the Squeakquel opens at a Chipmunks charity concert, where Alvin's over the top antics cause a Bret Michaels moment for poor Dave Seville: a stage prop drops down and whacks him on the head, putting him out of commission for the majority of the movie (I wonder if Jason Lee had a prior engagement, but was still available to film five or six scenes for the movie, three of which included the Dave Seville trademark "Aaaaaaalviiiin!").  Then, right before the boys are to go with their Aunt Jackie (although I would say she's more of a great aunt, if she's Dave's aunt), she takes a tumble, backwards, down a flight of airport stairs in her wheelchair.  By now, with both responsible people in the hospital through no fault of their own, the irresponsible Toby Seville (Dave's cousin)  is all that's left to take care of the Chipmunks, but he can't be bothered because all he'd rather do is sit around all day playing DS, Wii and Xbox 360 games.^  Simon's supposedly in charge, but although he's much more mature now, he's hardly shown being in charge of anything.  There are maybe one or two scenes where he shows that he's trying - including one scene where he makes a disparaging comment about one of Toby's food habits, but given that the Chipmunks did a similar thing with waffles in the 2007 movie, it makes him seem slightly hypocritical - but for the majority of the movie, he just gets into conflicts with Alvin over how he chooses to use his time.

Speaking of video games: just like in the 2007 movie, the Squeakquel contains obvious product placement.  At one point, the camera pans across a room, and in the background are various gaming paraphernalia, including an issue of a magazine that clearly states that there's an article on Fallout 3 inside of it, and the camera waits until the audience has had enough time to notice and read it before changing focus.  Also, Alvin and Toby play Wii Bowling in a scene that closely resembles every Wii gamer's worst nightmare.^*  And everyone seems to have iPhones this time around.

I felt the character of Toby seemed to be just a rehash of Dave from the first movie.  Toby was awkward with love just like Dave, except even more so.  At one point, his clumsiness caused him to break a drum and then flee the room.  Then, at the end, he managed to get the girl anyway.  Also, his sudden appearance during a concert helps to save the day for the Chipmunks (although during very different circumstances, of course; Dave merely had to show up to the concert in the 2007 movie, Toby actually went up on stage from where he was behind it).  Dave shows up suddenly as well during the same scene, which makes it a double Seville whammy.  Toby manages to get through the movie without changing much, though.  I have no doubt that after the events of the Squeakquel, he'll probably fall back to his old gaming ways.

I mentioned that Simon's much more mature now.  In fact, all three Chipmunks act more mature in the Squeakquel.  They've definitely grown up a lot since the 2007 movie, where Simon stated that they're just kids.  Despite how much the boys get on Dave's nerves, he's obviously been a good influence on them.  At least Dave doesn't have to worry about being reminded of the size of Theodore's butt anymore.

He might have to worry about Ian Hawke, though.  In the 2007 movie, Ian seemed modeled after former boy-band manager Lou Pearlman.  Since 2007, Pearlman has been convicted and jailed for various offenses related to one of the largest and longest-running Ponzi schemes in American history.  Ian, however, seems to have had better luck, for he's merely homeless.  Apparently, when you get caught lip syncing, public backlash is random.  No one cared that Boney M did it, since the practice was common at the time it was discovered.  When Milli Vanilli did it, it was suddenly an unforgivable crime, even though the same guy was behind both Milli Vanilli and Boney M.  When the Chipmunks let the cat out of the bag at the end of the 2007 movie, it apparently hasn't hurt their music career, but Ian Hawke has ended up practically bankrupt, for he eats out of Dumpsters while living in the basement of Jett Records, and surreptitiously brushes his teeth when he thinks no one is watching.  Somehow, though, he can gain access to video recording equipment and a computer with an Internet connection long enough to upload videos to YouTube.

But this brings up a good point: the universe that the Chipmunks exist in is full of holes if you think about it.  Everyone is willing to accept singing chipmunks, except when it's convenient to the plot that you don't accept singing chipmunks.  Singing chipmunks have freakish upper body strength, even more so than certain mathematics nerds.  There are other intelligent animals other than chipmunks, but they're few and far between.  Music becomes popular very, very quickly, and if you upload something to any kind of public network, you can get everyone's attention with minimal effort (...okay, I'm willing to concede this point in light of evidence supporting the statement).  Fans of the Chipmunks act just like fans of any other group, to the point where some fans obviously have romantic interests towards them.  This may seem taboo in our society, but if they're intelligent creatures, would this still count as bestiality?  It might not even count as pedophilia, since animals tend to mature at a much faster rate than humans.  For all we know, the Chipmunks and the Chipettes are technically of age even though they're still going to high school.

That is not to say that these are critical problems within the old series or the new continuity.  A universe with singing chipmunks must've gone through significant societal changes since the original debut of the band, and what is taboo to us might not be taboo to them.  It's not unusual in a universe like this to go on a race around the world through potentially treacherous conditions (old continuity), or to threaten other sentient creatures with consumption (new continuity; the more I think about that, the more angry and horrible I feel at what the Chipettes were threatened with).  You can get away with almost stepping on your fellow classmates and it's okay because they're short enough that it's a hazard of living.

Keeping pedophilia in mind, it's a good thing they updated the designs of both the Chipmunks and the Chipettes.  Just like when the Chipmunks were introduced in the 2007 movie, the Chipettes are completely naked (with fur, of course) when they're first shown, and later given clothing to wear in order to fit in.  In their original design, the Chipettes looked more like little girls than chipmunks, and naked little girls would've been hard to get past any kind of sensor.  Plus, I prefer how they look now as fully chipmunk girls rather than the weird mostly-human designs from the 80's.  Just like with their 80's designs, they were able to keep each Chipette distinctive.  You can easily tell Brittany from her sisters, Jeanette and Eleanor.  It could've been because I was really young at the time, or it could've been because the Chipettes weren't seen as often as the Chipmunks, but I could never remember the names of the Chipettes until the Squeakquel was announced.  It helped that the individual names of the Chipmunks were mentioned in the theme song to their cartoon, and so every week their names were re-enforced in my mind, but no such luck with the Chipettes.

At least this movie did something that the 2007 movie didn't: instead of handwaving such a detail as unimportant, it explained how three chipmunks could escape from a locked cage.  It also did what the other two movies didn't do, and put the focus on cover versions of popular songs rather than new music.  The Chipmunks may have gotten their start singing original material, but it's become the trademark of both the Chipmunks and the Chipettes to cover other artists, and both the original Adventure and the 2007 movie contained very few cover songs.  I mean, seriously.  Wooly Bully?!  That's the best they could do in 1987?  Even the 2008 album contained a lot of original material, including a new Christmas song that's as good or possibly better than their original Christmas song.  The majority of the music you hear in the Squeakquel are cover songs, but it's as if someone picked up the Billboard top 40 list for a random week during the summer of 2009 and chose a bunch of songs from it, then picked a few of the most overdone songs ever to round out the list (if you're wondering, it's an automatic half a point off for the presence of We Are Family), and wrote a couple original songs so that they could pretend they put a little effort into it (although the plot didn't really call for new music anyway).  Not only that, but the soundtrack contains a bonus track that they obviously couldn't find a way to fit it into a movie already stuffed with music.^**

Despite the problems I can see within the movie and the franchise in general, it was very entertaining and full of laughs.  I think an enjoyable time was had by everyone who saw the movie, despite everyone trying to leave during the credits.  Myself, I'm hoping there's a third movie, but at the same time I hope they only do one if there's a good idea behind it, something much like this movie was, one that acted like it belonged with the old material while remaining firmly within the new canon.  One that was fun and funny to watch, with enjoyable characters (although Toby should probably go) and (mostly) decent music.

So there you go: this is not the kind of movie you go to if you're looking for something intelligent.  It's eye candy, pure and simple.  Entertainment only.  My recommendation is a conditional one: if you don't mind watching a cartoon script filmed in live action, then go ahead and watch the movie.  By all means, if you're babysitting the kids, take them and they'll enjoy it immensely.  If you're a hardcore Chipmunks fan and own all their albums, even the hard to find ones, you might like the Squeakquel if you liked the 2007 movie.  For everyone else... at least there's The Chipmunk Adventure.



*I am probably the only person in Revelstoke, other than the theatre employees, who has seen the final scene to this movie.  Honestly, would it kill everyone to wait until the credits are over to see if there's anything afterward?  Has everyone's houses burst into flame at exactly the same time, somehow timed to the second to start when the end credits roll?  True story: after the rest of my family finally saw Iron Man, on freaking DVD for crying out loud!, I asked them what they thought of Samuel L Jackson in the final scene and they said, "Huh?  What Samuel L Jackson scene?"

**If they do, I wonder if they're going to cast someone as Mrs. Miller, the lady who became the guardian for the Chipettes in the original continuity when it became clear that the Boys of Rock and Roll couldn't stand living with the Girls of Rock and Roll.  It'd probably be hard to replace Dody Goodman's portrayal, though.

***Hey, I think I figured out where Richard Heene and Mayumi Iizuka got their idea from.

*^ To me, it would make more sense if they had stolen one of the four (at the time) space shuttles that NASA was using, although given what happened to Columbia, I would rather they swiped one of the other ones.  However, I do not know enough about rockets to know for sure what I am talking about, and the song speaks of rockets anyway, so maybe it's Elton John and Bernie Taupin who don't know what they're talking about?  If you go further back, the song was inspired by a story by Ray Bradbury, so maybe he didn't know what he was talking about at the time?  Early science fiction certainly had that problem.

^ Possibly PS3, PSP, and PS2 games as well, but I guess Sony didn't pay for any product placement; I could see nothing PlayStation brand in the movie.

^* Considering Emerson's outrage at a scene in Heroes where Claire Bennett ruined her hand in one of their disposal units, I'm surprised Nintendo doesn't sue the movie for showing that their product can break a plasma TV if you don't wear the wrist strap.  Also, being Americans, I'm surprised the Chipmunks didn't sue Nintendo during the movie for not making controllers that are chipmunk-sized.  As The Chipmunk Adventure showed, playing any kind of video games can be a full body sport when you're a chipmunk.

^** The bonus track sucks.  I never thought I'd say this about a Chipmunks song, but there are a lot of songs that have been made in the last few years that wouldn't work as Chipmunks songs.  As an aside, I honestly think that the Chipettes could do better than sing Katy Perry, but they managed to improve Hot N Cold, so I'm happy.  I can even make out some of the lyrics that I can't in the original, oddly enough.

Remembering Star Wars Episode I

| | Comments (0)
swep1banner.jpgLeading up to the opening of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace on this day ten years ago, fans of the original trilogy paid attention to every bit of information that trickled out pertaining to it, especially if it was a trailer. Here was a movie whose prequel would delve into the untold story of a young Anakin Skywalker, with this intended to be the first in a trilogy where the events of him eventually becoming Darth Vader would be seen in all its cinematic glory. For anyone who liked Star Wars in their younger days, the event building up to the movie's opening was one of the most memorable in their geek-laden lives.

So it's a pity they probably don't remember all of that too well, and that's kind of sad.

Though the hype was utterly glorious, the movie itself was kind of disastrous and laden with flaws and storytelling problems. As you could expect, the outrage for it was one of the biggest ever. By 1999, the internet was hitting its stride, and just about every geek in the know had access to some kind of message board (blogs didn't start becoming popular until around a year later, you see). It wasn't just them, as reviews for it weren't so hot either, and the movie far from attained the praise that the first three movies received.

But all of this begged the question: what if all of us were just a victim of its massive hype campaign. Hype unfortunately can ruin even the greatest masterpiece, especially if you paid attention to and absorbed everything producers threw your way. At the time shortly after the movie released, you could probably consider this to be a viable explanation as to why fans didn't enjoy it. Unfortunately for TPM, all it takes is another viewing to see that this is definitely not the case.

swep1pic1_051909.pngIt's called "How to Make a Grown Fan Cry."

I decided that I wanted to see first-hand whether I was a victim of the hype ten years ago by watching the movie again. Not only was I not a victim, but since I've become older and wiser within ten years time, I actually enjoyed the movie much less. This was also something I realized (but didn't want to admit to) about three-and-a-half years ago, when I decided to watch both trilogies back-to-back. After watching all six of them, something about the entire trilogy felt off, which is what I talked about (or tried to) in this post. And it's a shame that the experience itself ended up more memorable than the movie it was hyping.

It's such a big heart breaker because the sheer potential of the story being told was grand. What TPM wanted to do was delve into the psychological depths of a boy whose life was so troubled and paved with turmoil that his thoughts led him astray, leaving him feeling like he had to turn to the dark side for the answers he needed. Thinking about that, it's an excellent concept, and one that could be on par, if not better than, the story explained in its predecessors. But there were a lot of elements that together crippled the narrative in its road to relevance, leaving the entire experience feeling only a little sensible and incredibly empty.

Perhaps the biggest problem the movie had lied in the portrayal of Anakin himself. What the character needed was an actor whose talent was capable of portraying the character he was, giving the viewers a preview of the person he would eventually become. That actor was definitely not Jake Lloyd, whose shrill performance and cringe-worthy portrayal of Anakin would seriously be more believable if he was growing up to become Dark Helmet instead of Darth Vader. After the movie was over, I was wondering if George Lucas forgot that he was supposed to become the franchise's most memorable villain and said, "Oh yeah. This kid's supposed to become Vader isn't he? Huh." Yeah, uh, oops.

swep1pic2_051909.pngYeah, he could totally pass for a young Rick Moranis.

By this point, I'm pretty sure everyone's still fuming about the introduction of Jar-Jar Binks, a character the Star Wars universe seriously didn't need. It wasn't simply that he was a random character who often spouted inane lines who felt like a desperate attempt to appeal to the younger crowd, but it was also the fact that he was present the entire movie. Far too often he ruined a lot of scenes every time he opened his mouth to say something emphatically idiotic, mainly in times where the cast was involved in some sort of turmoil. Heck, even the scene with his people fighting against the enemy in the last few moments of the film couldn't be taken seriously.

Also a pity was the untapped potential of some characters. For instance, I really liked Qui-Gon Jinn, and I like Liam Neeson acting abilities; so it's a shame that his character was pitifully underutilized. I would've loved to have known more about what exactly he saw in Anakin, as well as the depths of his knowledge of the Jedi and how much he really knew Obi-Wan. He still turned out to be the best character introduced to this movie, despite the lack of development.

I would have liked to have learned more about Darth Maul as well, other than the fact that he's part of the Dark Side and that he looks cool -- and I'm sure most kids found Darth Maul cooler than Jar Jar. Despite being such a presence on screen, we never really learn who he is, why he fights, and why he ended up siding with Darth Sidious. It's a shame, and that's three characters whose potential was squandered (I'm including Anakin in that mix as well).

swep1pic3_051909.pngFun fact: most of the other screen caps I took from the race could have fooled people in to thinking it was the game instead. And that says a few things.

This movie also has, oh boy, pod racing. What could've been one of the most entertaining and heart-pounding sequences in the franchise turned into a prolonged racing sequence that felt like it was doing marketing to ensure everyone picked up a copy of Star Wars Episode I: Racer, preferably for Nintendo 64 - which wasn't that bad of a game, but still. The problem with the sequence was that it didn't have a big of a sense of danger and suspense as the driving (so to speak) sequences found in the previous trilogy. Interestingly enough, the game's pod racing sequences were far better.

Not to say it was all bad. The music and special effects are still absolutely fantastic. The bad thing about that is George Lucas realized that, and used the effects a tad too often, which sometimes got in the way of the narrative. Not to mention that it also tried (and failed) to redeem some dreadful action sequences, like the aforementioned Jar Jar fight for freedom and the one with Anakin just happening to press the right buttons to fend of enemies - though the Jedi vs. Sith battle almost made up for both of those. Some of the music from the venerable John Williams isn't used in the best way possible, but it's implementation is still effective for key moments. In other words, it's used much better than in Star Wars: Episode II.

The phrase "untapped potential" used above is what you could describe as the entirety of Star Wars Episode I. And therein lies the reason why it's so disappointing, because within it you can see a better movie struggling to break from its shackles. But it's unfortunately hindered by a sequence of bad decisions and poor storytelling with an intention to establish mascot characters and sell action figures.

swep1pic4_051909.pngHey, but the action sequences were pretty great.

But for the rest of the day, instead of focusing too much on the bad, try to think about your memories surrounding the hype leading up to the movie. I reviewed it here just to show that the movie really isn't that great, and give reasons as to why I don't like it rather than simply blurting out the internet-esque "dude it blows LOL." For as much as the movie was a let down, I still enjoyed it to some extent, and I look back on the entire experience very positively. It's a memory that I'll never forget. We may not forget the crushing letdown, but we also shouldn't forget the grand experience that led up to the opening of the movie.

Tomorrow, though, it's off limits.
blood_movie_liveaction.jpg


The last few rounds of anime to Hollywood live-action movie adaptations have left me with low expectations. These days I've come to accept new adaptation announcements with a small sigh (especially the Hollywood ones). But I'm not completely beyond hope. At least two recent announcements have left me with some hope for decent anime to live-action movies.

On Friday Sony announced its acquisition of the North American rights to the live-action adaptation of Blood: The Last Vampire. It will release in Japan on May 29th, the United Kingdom on June 12th and in France on June 17th. Currently there is no release date for North America beyond the vague "Summer 2009" message on the official website. In a literal sense the release date could be any where between mid-June to mid-September, although I doubt Sony would release this movie beyond July or August.

I have some hope Blood: The Last Vampire could turn out to be a decent movie. As an adaptation from a short animated movie this concept makes more sense than Dragonball Evolution, Full Metal Panic! and even Cowboy Bebop. Films about human/vampire hybrids seeking to destroy demons is a tried and tested genre-- in other words it works. At best this film could be a glimpse of what the animated Blood: The Last Vampire could have been, as supposed to the loosely related Blood+. At worst it could be reminiscent of Blade, although that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Watching the trailer certainly does remind me of Blade, but fortunately that was an enjoyable movie. I may personally take a wait-and-see approach with this movie, but if international reviews are positive I may consider seeing this one in theaters.

Next up we have the news of Warner Brothers' acquisition of the rights to the live-action adaptation of Death Note. The fact that this adaptation comes in the face of not one, but three Japanese live-action films (all of which were shown in North America) raises my eyebrow a little. At the same time I'm not that surprised given Hollywood's anime adaptation spree. Like Blood, I'm optimistic about Death Note. It could translate well on the big screen. Still, with three live-action films out already it'll be hard not to make comparisons.

In short, I'm actually somewhat pleased with these announcements. Blood already looks to be interesting, and Warner Brothers would have to be made of a special kind of suck to ruin a series like Death Note.

Redefining Shamelessness

| | Comments (0)
Have you ever come across the movie whose plot wasn't the most unique and original you heard, but you enjoyed it anyway? The former doesn't apply for me in terms of a movie like Taken (because, you know, I haven't seen it yet), but the plot isn't the most original. But hey, it sure looks like it's enjoyable and adequately directed.

But that isn't the point of this post. When come to see and/or buy an enjoyable movie in droves, that movie's plot is destined to be ripped off somehow and in some way very shortly after the original movie in question releases. When I saw that Taken was a hit -- which isn't too much of a surprise, given how there usually aren't any movies worth looking at during the first quarter of every year -- I knew it was going to be ripped off immensely. And it already has! The surprise here is that it happened much faster than it took for most other movies, and as a bonus, the main star is a has-been man of, uh, "action."

similarmovies_042409.jpgThere's also something else to consider with the releases of Taken and Driven to Kill, their release dates. They both release on DVD rather close to each other, the former on 5/12 with the latter on 5/19. Surely their close release and similar plots mean this is all just a coincidence, you could say. But there's one thing to remember: Taken has actually been out overseas for a while, for well over a year if IMDB is correct, making for plenty of time for a team of producers to create a cheap direct-to-video cash in. Clearly, someone has some explaining to do.

But this isn't to say that Driven to Kill will 100% completely rip-off Taken, even though the eerily similar tag line on the cover reeks of the DVD producers begging for you to make an assumptive leap and say "Hey! This movie looks just like that Liam Neeson movie! I'm sure it's just as good too." It's not like Taken is the most original plot out there; hardly. But I'm sure a similar movie releasing at almost the same time with a similar tag line is a coincidence. Because it's undeniably not.

By the way, I'm personally interested in seeing both movies, but for different kinds of entertainment. One I'm sure will be enjoyable, the other will be enjoyably bad. I'll let you guess which ones I'm referring to.

The Force in film

| | Comments (0)
For some strange reason unbeknownst to me, I've been thinking about the Star Wars movies recently. Not just of the franchise as a whole -- or how is a dominant and/or semi-dominant force (HAW HAW) in varying forms of media, but of the difference in feel and aesthetic between the old trilogy and the new one. It's something that has to go a lot deeper than an internet-style inane conclusion of blurting out that one is simply better than the other merely because someone's eyes are only blinded by nostalgia.

That's not to infer that I'm going to proceed and give my expert and newfound analysis on why the new trilogy is better than the old one. That actually sounds like a neat idea in theory, but...uh, even I wouldn't take that seriously because (1) my heart wouldn't be into it because I don't believe it to be true, because (2) it's not true at all. The newer movies are definitely lacking something, but the problem is that many people just haven't elaborated on what specifically they didn't like about the newer ones, even if they are correct about them. And it all has to do with senses of subtlety...and the lack thereof.

The old Star Wars movies are pretty intriguing tales of travel and intrigue in an imaginative and fantastical version of outer space that's realistic to be appealing and unrealistic enough to tingle the nerd senses. The characters and talented acting also help, even if someone like Alec Guinness felt the movie was below his standards. It may not have been art in cinematic form, but when the work itself is enjoyable and immersive, do you really need that? Of course not, and Star Wars is definitely one of the best examples of that. Sure, these days the movie may be a little cheesy in parts (which probably involves any part Yoda and Chewbacca are in), but that's where our sense of nostalgia for "the times" comes in.

swrotj_042309.jpgA convincing scene.

While the movies can be intense at times, it's for the right reasons, and fortunately doesn't go too overboard while doing that. What's interesting is seeing how well the action sequences have aged, especially in the original Star Wars from the late 70s. That goes to show how ahead of its time the movie was not only in terms of action/sci-fi narrative in film, but in sheer technology. The fact that fans still want to immerse themselves in the universe via video games and novels to this day speaks volumes about its lasting effect.

Because they sure don't want to immerse themselves in the newer movies! And I can't blame them either. I'm sure George Lucas had good intentions, but I don't think he really realized precisely what worked about the original movies. It has a lot to do with the sense of subtlety in the new trilogy, in that it doesn't have one. Instead, most of the action is special effects nonsense that, while flashy, kind of gets in the way of the storyline and dialog. And speaking of the dialog, some of it just sounds awkward because of it being written for the wrong actor or just being poor to begin with (example: just about any scene with Anakin and Padme from Star Wars Episode II). The acting itself isn't great either. I haven't seen Jake Lloyd in enough to form an opinion on his overall acting talent, but his performance as Anakin is quite abysmal. Hayden Christensen's portrayal as Anakin is similarly terrible, but the difference between those two is that Christensen can actually act, which you probably already know if you've seen a movie like Shattered Glass. If anything, it shows how bad casting can hurt a movie; among other nuisances like bad pacing (especially in Episode II) and the aforementioned issues.

swrots_042309.jpgNot at all a convincing scene.

These days I could die a happy man if I never saw Episodes I and II ever again, but I have a certain fondness for Episode III. Throughout the movie, it constantly feels as if Lucas was slowly remembering what people liked about the Star Wars franchise. And he almost did, if it wasn't for that pesky plot and exposition that kept getting in the way of the action sequences (though they're significantly better paced than the first two of the trilogy). Also, Christensen hams it up big time. He's about as convincing of a future Darth Vader as I am a poet, meaning that he isn't good at all. Nevertheless, it's still an enjoyable movie, but Lucas tried his damnedest to foil it.

I don't know why I actually started thinking of this suddenly, but I figured it was interesting enough to discuss here, especially since the series is still relevant nowadays. This wasn't completely inspired by the mini Star Wars marathon on Spike TV last week, but I'll admit that it did help me in framing my thoughts for this. Meanwhile, Star Wars continues its proliferation in sheer merchandising with its new TV series: The Clone Wars (which itself is OK). But I'm really not sure if I want them to make any more movies.

Archives

February 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28            

Blogroll

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by Movable Type Pro