Joseph Gordon Levitt to Star in Oliver Stone Movie

Joseph Gordon Levitt will be Edward Snowden.

Reports from Variety announced that the Don Jon actor, who recently starred in the less-than pleasurable Robert Rodriguez film Sin City: A Dame To Kill For, has recently been in talks to portray Edward Snowden in Oliver Stone’s upcoming biopic The Snowden Files, heavily based off of the book “Time Of The Octopus” by Snowden’s lawyer Anatoly Kucherena.

For those who are unaware of the story of Edward Snowden, Snowden is a former U.S. intelligence analyst who released more classified documents than any other whistleblower in the history of the U.S. Since declared a terrorist and an enemy of the United States, Snowden now currently resides in Russia, away from the U.S.’s jurisdiction.

I have nothing to say about this. Absolutely nothing. I know too little about Snowden’s story to be able to give an opinion on it, so I will abstain my comments for now until I either read the book or watch the movie.

I will say I am excited for this casting decision. And that is all.

What do you think? Do you think JGL is the perfect choice for Edward Snowden? Comment below, let me know.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: Variety, Empire

‘Deadpool’ is FINALLY getting a movie.

Part of me wanted to get really flashy with this new bit of exciting news, but I’m just going to drop this picture here and accurately describe what we are all feeling.

 

Coming in February 2016.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: Everywhere on the internet

Tom Hiddleston to travel to “Skull Island”

Okay, this makes the King Kong prequel just a little bit better.

It looks like Avengers star Tom Hiddleston is scheduled to take the lead role for Skull Island, a prequel to the King Kong series taking place years before he met Ann Darrow. Not only that, but filmmaker Jordan Vogt-Roberts, most known for the indie project The Kings of Summer, has been announced as the director to helm the project. Little details have been given about the project, and we’re probably not going to get much more information until production begins in 2015.

I was never really keen on this project, because I got my King Kong movie in 2005 through Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson. However, I am interested in this project, especially since it involves Loki himself and Vogt-Roberts, who is also slated to director the movie adaptation of Konami’s popular video game series Metal Gear Solid. It is also important to note that Max Borenstein, one of the screenwriter’s behind Gareth Edward’s 2014 remake of Godzilla, is scheduled to write the script. While I didn’t care much for the movie entirely, I don’t blame the writers for that, and for the most part, this looks like a solid team put together for Skull Island.

What do you guys think? I know you all like Hiddleston because he’s JUST PERFECT OMG. But what about the production overall? Are you excited for a King Kong prequel, or are you satisfied with Peter Jackson’s iteration?

Comment below and let me know.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: TotalFilm, ComingSoon.net

The Rock Set To ‘Shazam!’ Into Theaters

Shazam!

Sorry, I had to do that. Couldn’t resist.

Much speculation has been made in the past months over what DC Comics role Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson was going to accept for the upcoming expanded film universe. First, it was speculated that he was going to portray Shazam, a.k.a. Captain Marvel, for the upcoming movie. Then, it was rumored that he was going to portray his arch-enemy Black Adam instead. Now, it has officially been confirmed: Johnson will be portraying Black Adam in the upcoming Shazam film set for release sometime in 2016.

“We Love Dwayne and have had nothing but success with him over the years,” said Toby Emmerich, President and COO of New Line Picures. “When I look at Dwayne both off screen and on screen, he is such a larger than life character and it just made perfect sense to me that we put him in a DC comic movie.”

I personally am very excited for this bit of news. This news has been circling around of months with fans wondering which character Johnson was set to portray. While I think he would have done well portraying the character of Shazam, I think Black Adam is a much better choice for him. It’s a darker, more brooding and menacing role Johnson isn’t normally used to playing, and perhaps it will help him break out of the family-friendly roles he’s been more or less trapped in for a few years now.

“Young Billy Batson finds himself gifted with the power of the wizard Shazam to fight against the forces of evil. With the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and speed of Mercury, he is the holder of the power of the hero Shazam.” – Description courtesy of iMDB

What do you guys think? Is Johnson right for the role, or would you have preferred him for the lead instead? Either way, sound off below to let me know what you think.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: Entertainment Weekly, Variety

‘Frozen’ Gets A Short Sequel

The critically-acclaimed Disney animated film Frozen is getting a follow-up, but it won’t be in a feature-length film.

Details emerged Tuesday that Walt Disney is working on a short film titled Frozen Fever, which will be a continuation/spin-off to the Oscar-winning movie that won best animated feature and best original song. Sources announced through an ABC television special called “The Story of Frozen: Making an Animated Classic” that the film would reunite directors Jennifer Lee and Chris Buck with song writers Robert Lopez and Kristen Anderson-Lopez, who will come up with new music material for the film exclusively.

Question is, what could it possibly be about? According sources, the short film takes place during Anna’s birthday, and things become much more of a ruckus once Elsa’s powers come into the play.

“Elsa and Kristoff are determined to give her the best celebration ever, but Elsa’s icy powers may put more than just the party at risk,” said an article on Cinemablend.

I’ll be honest, I don’t know if this is the right move for Disney or not. Frozen was one of the most highly revered films of the year, breaking box office records and winning audiences hearts worldwide. The film grossed over 1 billion dollars worldwide, the soundtrack reached number one on the Billboard 200, and it inspired an entire culture that sold out merchandise and costumes like it was Halloween for Disneyland. A growing franchise that big should not treat it’s follow-up with a short animated special like Toy Story or Cars does, or like Dreamworks does with about every single one of their properties.

Granted, Toy Story and Cars have reason to produce short animated specials because their franchise has grown with the production of at least one sequel. I may be playing the devil’s advocate here, but I think mainstream audiences are going to want more of Anna and Elsa than just 10 or 20 minutes of musical magic.

What do you guys think? Do you want more of the snow-covered sisters than a short film, or do you think Disney is smart by playing it safe for now? I’ll admit that I didn’t give Frozen the most popular review when it came out in theaters, but I do point out opportunities when I see them.

Either way, comment below and let me know. And don’t eat the yellow snow.

-David Dunn

SOURCES: Cinemablend, Empire

Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling are ‘Nice Guys’

Trust me; these are the not the nice guys you want to mess with.

Casting has recently been announced for Shane Black’s 1970’s neo-noir thriller Nice Guys: Ryan Gosling is set to star in the film as private Holland March, a troubled, headstrong detective who clashed in with hired muscle Jackson Healy, scheduled to be portrayed by Crowe.

“Ever since we did ‘Kiss Kiss Bang Bang’, I’ve been eager to work with Shane again, and with this film we made it happen,” said producer Joel Silver in a statement by Variety. “It’s a terrific script written in Shane’s great cinematic voice. With Russell and Ryan on board, I know we’re in for another wild ride.”

Man, does Shane Black have a lot on his plate. I knew from reporting earlier this summer that Black was scheduled to write and direct the Predators sequel, but man, does he have a lot more to do than just that. He’s also slated to helm the adaptation for Doc Savage and The Destroyer by Warren Murphy and Richard Sapir. No official dates have been set for these films, but keep in mind that he is currently scheduled to write and direct all four of these movies, starting with Nice Guys to be released sometime in 2016.

He has to give something up. He has to produce one of these and throw the director’s duty to someone else. There’s no way he can see all of this through. Even the most skilled directors have difficulty producing multiple projects at once, like Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson did. Granted, they did release War Horse, The Adventures of Tintin, and The Hobbit series consecutively, but keep in mind they were working on production for all of those films cumulatively back, to back, to back.

I don’t care how talented Shane Black is as a writer and as a director. There’s no way he can pull of four films in a four year period. Even he would get exhausted.

What do you guys think? Are you thinking Black is loading himself on a little thick here? I’m fine with the casting choices, as both of them always deliver a good mix of solid work, but the acting doesn’t matter if the material isn’t handled well. And with how much Black has stocked on his shoulders, I’m a little concerned that he might crumble.

Comment below, let me know.

-David Dunn

SOURCE: Empire, Cinemablend

“BOYHOOD” Review (✫✫✫✫)

A scrapbook by Richard Linklater.

The main character’s name in Boyhood is not Mason. His name is also David. And Connor. And Warren. Aaron. Stacey. Tony. Eric. Steven. Ben. Richard. And so on and so forth until you’ve listed every masculine name in the dictionary. I probably went eight names over how many I needed to list, but you get my point. We’re doing more than just watching one boy’s journey into adulthood here. We’re watching ourselves grow with him.

Strange, I think. I don’t normally sympathize with characters to the point where I feel like I AM them. Relating to protagonists is a somewhat straightforward task; you merely need to introduce the character along with their conflict, and then let the filmmaker do his work to bringing their arc to life.

But with Boyhood, I face an interesting prospect: there is no one conflict that Mason faces in the story. Like myself and my closest family and friends, Mason’s conflict is life itself, complete with all of its blessings, gifts, challenges, and turmoils alike. If you’re still not getting the picture, let me put it to you this way; if I were a filmmaker, and I were adapting the full story of your life, would I be able to condense it into one or two events?

The answer is no, I couldn’t. There is a whole multitude of issues you’ve faced in your life, just like I did, and I’m sure we could turn those issues into ten or twelve more movies if we tried. Director Richard Linklater chose not to do that. With Boyhood, he took one boy’s life, a small child he found named Ellar Coltrane, and followed him from age six until age 18, gradually showing his life progress and the challenges he faced as he grew into a man year, by year, by year.

It’s fascinating I tell you, to watch a movie progress from one generation to another. I look at Ellar as a young boy obsessing over cartoons and action figures while his sister, portrayed by Linklater’s daughter Lorelei, constantly talks about makeup and Britney Spears. I look at these children’s parents, played by a significantly younger Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke, as they struggle to connect and be there for their children and to be the best parents they possibly can be. It’s interesting to see these children mature from young, simple-minded beings to young adults, trying to find their own paths in life while their parents mature from being those young adults to the older, more mature parents that have faced, and survived, every difficulty they could have ever faced.

It’s pointless to describe what the plot of the movie is like. What is the plot of the movie? Fill the movie with your life experiences, and you have the plot. I caught myself many times reliving past memories while watching the movie, sympathizing with Mason as I remember how I too faced issues such as bullying, peer pressure, puberty, growing up, and finding a place where I belonged.

It’s not so much a movie as it is a scrapbook of memories, and Linklater is merely showing the memories on screen like he’s pulling a photograph out of a book.

What of the performances then? Patricia and Ethan are the most emotive performances out of the movie, but that’s to be expected considering they’ve been working on this movie, among others, for literally a decade. Lorelei is cute as a child at the beginning of the film, but as the movie continues on, it begins to focus more on Ellar while Lorelei, more or less, fades in to the background.

That being said, Ellar isn’t the most compelling actor in the film. As a child at the beginning, he is the most believable, but that’s because he’s living, not acting, in the moment. When he’s playing with his friends or when he’s dressed up for the Harry Potter premiere, you know that’s him being excited in the moment, similar to how Drew Barrymore believed E.T. was real during the filming for E.T: The Extra Terrestrial. As he gets older, however, he gets less emotional about things and more or less goes through the motions wherever Linklater guides him.

At first, I thought this was an obvious criticism to the film, because how is a kid going to maintain his acting ability through 12 years of his life? As I look deeper, however, I realize that Ellar isn’t intended to give a performance. He isn’t meant to be an actor, but a surrogate, a character whose emotions and memories we fill in the film and then we sympathize with because those are the same emotions we faced when we were his age.

Mason goes through a lot in this movie. As a toddler, he witnesses his parents go through divorce. As a child, he faces abuse from his alcoholic stepfather. As a teenager, bullying. As a high schooler, heartbreak. This movie is so tangible that it made me want to grab hold of Mason. It made me want to hold him and hug him, telling him the same thing my mother told me when I was going through my own issues at his age.

I want to grab him and say to him, “You’re going to be okay, Mason. You’re going to be okay.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“SIN CITY: A DAME TO KILL FOR” Review (✫)

Can you kill me too while you’re so busy at it? Thanks. 

There’s a character early on in Sin City: A Dame To Kill For that describes the city as a place “where you go in with your eyes open, or you don’t come out at all.” He’s wrong. I went in and out with my eyes fully open. I only wished that I kept them closed.

Oh, where to begin with this. Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is, in a word, messy – a neo-noir thriller as confusing as a detective’s murder case and more violent, putrid and horrific than a crime scene. The only brains this movie has are the ones that it blows out of peoples’ heads.

The plot takes place sometime within the Sin City universe. The question is when? I honestly don’t know, and I don’t think the movie knows either. It’s part prequel, part sequel and part in-betweenuel that cuts to wherever and whenever it wants to.

Like the first movie, there are three main stories the plot revolves around and, likewise, three main characters to sympathize with. You have a young Dwight McCarthy (Josh Brolin), who, before he met Jackie Boy, was obsessing over a rich housewife named Ava (Eva Green). There’s Johnny (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), an overly-cocky poker player who wants to come to Sin City and beat the king of all cards himself — Senator Roark (Powers Boothe). And then there’s Nancy (Jessica Alba), who is still coping with John Hartigan’s (Bruce Willis) suicide at the end of Sin City.

Following this easy enough? Good, because that’s all the explanation you’re going to get. The biggest problem with Sin City: A Dame To Kill For is that it’s so convoluted. Stories are meshed, mixed and thrown together without any sense of connection or correlation to its plot, and the entire time while I was watching it, I kept wondering where these stories were taking place and why I should care. Some movies do well with intertwining narratives, such as Pulp Fiction or Crash. This is not one of them.

A good example of this is in the very first scene of the film. Marv (Mickey Rourke), the hard-headed thug who was framed for the murder of Goldie in the first movie, wakes up next to two crashed cars with no memory of how he got there. He goes through mundane dialogue for five minutes in his obviously exaggerated thuggish accent, then the movie cuts to the story and almost completely forgets about him.

My first thought after watching this: why was that scene necessary? As the movie continued its runtime, I continued to ask this question in my head until I realized that none of it was necessary, that it was just a continuous farce of violence and delinquency that the kids who play Grand Theft Auto would just drool over.

This movie is definitely violent. That’s to be expected, I know, especially when you remember how violent the first one was. There is, however, a stark difference in how the violence is used in each movie. In the first Sin City, the violence was both shocking and satirical, at times being so disturbing that you can’t help but reel back from it, and at other times being so exaggerated that I laughed at it. Whether it was positive or negative, however, I at least felt something.

Here, nothing is felt. Here, we just look at all shades of black, red and white among severed body parts while we plod through the final act like it’s a homework assignment rather than the climactic ending that it deserves to be.

I’ll admit to having disliked the first Sin City. Does that matter? I give credit and criticism equally where it is due, and even though both Sin City’s are equally violent and despicable, the first one was at least more intriguing and had more cohesiveness both as a whole story and as smaller, separate narratives. This one fell flat, crumbled to pieces and was about as clear as a muddy window pane. Maybe that’s why Marv couldn’t remember anything at the beginning of this movie – he realized what he signed up for, and he tried to forget all about it.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“SIN CITY” Review (✫✫)

“There ain’t no sunshine when she’s gone.”

You’re either going to love or hate Sin City. There’s no getting around that fact. Like the movies directed by Quentin Tarantino or Eli Roth, Sin City is a movie specific to its own tastes, and doesn’t care much about the opinions opposite of it. It’s a violent, gross, disgusting and putrid film full of the stuff that would make a Catholic priest faint. If that sounds like something you would like, by all means, be my guest and have at it. If you are repulsed by my description of the film, I certainly don’t blame you.

Based off of the comic book series by Frank Miller, Sin City is a film that follows four separate stories that (mostly) intertwine together. John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) is an aged police officer who is viciously pursuing child rapist Roark Jr. (Nick Stahl). Marv (Mickey Rourke) is a rough-around-the-edges thug who is framed for the murder of a prostitute he slept with named Goldie (Jamie King). And Dwight (Clive Owen) is a private investigator who gets pulled into a turf war, risking the lives of cops and prostitutes alike.

What do all of these stories have in common? They all started because of a woman, and these men go out to kill because they love their woman. Or, at least, whatever constitutes as love in this universe, in which case it’s a one-night stand.

It’s so difficult to review a movie like Sin City. Why? Because it’s not for people like me, that’s why. I don’t like watching movies like Sin City. I don’t like watching blood and violence for the sake of blood and violence, or watching sex and nudity for the sake of sex and nudity. It’s hard to be non-biased with movies like these because I watch moments where a naked woman walks out with bare breasts and all, and I can’t help but imagine the director thinking “Hey, let’s have this actress naked in this scene, because boobs.”

Sin City is aggressively, unnecessarily violent. How violent? So violent that the least bloody scene in the movie came from Quentin Tarantino. That’s how bad it gets. Red, white, black and yellow blood splatter across the screen like Jackson Pollock was making a painting. Severed heads and body parts are frequently cut off and thrown around in the film like missing pieces to a G.I. Joe. Those body parts include testicles, by the way, on multiple occasions. And don’t even get me started on the absurdity of its kills. In one scene, Marv gets beaten, stabbed, shot, and crashed his car into a lake and still gets up to pursue Goldie’s killer. Good God, are these guys made of kevlar or something?

Remind you, I have no problem with violence in movies, but here it’s just far too absurd and disgusting to be able to fully stomach. When it’s used to illustrate an emotion or a point in movies like Pulp Fiction or Taxi Driver, I praise its purpose and its usage. Here, it illustrates no emotion or urgency. It’s a glorified selling point for a really long, disgusting, stupid movie.

I did like the visualization of Sin City. That, and its opening scene. I liked it’s black-and-white style, it’s sense of contrast and expert use of shadow and lighting. It gave it a strong reminiscent feeling of the classic neo-noir films that inspired the original Sin City comic books, the ones that have the snazzy saxophone playing in the background as two lovers stand on a balcony, telling each other that they love each other and that they never want to leave each other. The film itself, in fact, functions as a parody of the neo-noir genre: characters stand on balconies, docks, outrun police cars, smoke cigarettes and talk in thickly exaggerated accents to the point where it can’t be taken seriously.

Realize, however, that this wasn’t on accident; director Robert Rodriguez wanted you to see how he exaggerated details so you would understand that him and Frank Miller were lightly poking fun at the genre, all while at the same time suggesting delicate homages to it as well. I like that they tried to reach for a deeper effort with the film, even though their intentions were smarter than the film itself was.

So what’s my end consensus? Is it a movie that you should see or skip? I’ll leave that decision in your hands. For now, I have done my job in telling you what the movie is like, and I will wash my hands clean from it. I have church in the morning.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

“TEENAGE MUTANT NINJA TURTLES (2014)” Review (✫)

Thankfully, they’re not aliens. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is in complete and utter shambles, a movie that can’t decide on what it wants to be and not much better on how it wants to accomplish that. At times, it’s a loud and obnoxious action movie that takes its characters and their situations seriously. At other times, it’s so campy and immature it might as well be the Nickelodeon cartoon series. Wait, I take that back, that’s a dishonor to the Nickelodeon cartoon series. I don’t know what sort of movie I was expecting out of something titled Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but I would have taken anything over this travesty.

Based (somewhat) on Kevin Eastman and Peter Laird’s comic-book creations, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles follows the story of April O’Neil (Megan Fox), a struggling news reporter who is looking to uncover the criminal conspiracy of the Foot Clan, a team of specialized military-trained soldiers who fight for their master, Shredder (Tohoru Masamune). Shredder is tyrannical Japanese warlord who wants nothing more but to rule New York City, and like all dark and obscure bad guys, he’ll stop at nothing until he gets what he’s after. But April’s not alone in this fight; she also has her pet rat and turtles by her side, her little friends she’s cared for since they were experimented on by her father when she was just a little girl.

…What? Yes, dear readers, they changed the origin story. After Mr. O’Neil discovered how the dangerous turtle weapons were going to be used for destructive purposes, he sets his lab ablaze, killing himself and destroying all of his hard work. Just before the turtles could be destroyed, however, April saves her small friends from the fire and they escape into the sewers. (Question: Since the fire is so hot that it consumes her father nearly instantly, how is it that  6-year old April manages to not only get into the lab, but also avoid the fire, grab the turtles, get out of the lab, and get back onto the pavement with a little ash makeup spread onto her face for good measure?)

As years pass, the rat and turtles mature into giant-sized humanoid creatures who teach themselves the art of ninjutsu, thanks to a book they fished out of the garbage and the convenience the script allowed them. The rat named Splinter (Tony Shalhoub) trained his sons Leonardo (Johnny Knoxville), Raphael (Alan Ritchson), Donatello (Jeremy Howard) and Michelangelo (Noel Fisher), knowing one day that they would need to fight the Shredder and defend New York City.

Where do I even begin with this? For starters, the script is unreliable, an immature, idiotic and thinly-written-and-thought-out mess that has plot holes the size of Swiss cheese and is as convenient as the dollar store. I could be cheap and pick apart the small things in the story, like what compelled the scientists to pick turtles as their experiments of mass destruction?

That, however, is too easy. It’s much more fun to pick apart the bigger holes in the plot, including:

  1. The fact that there is no way that Splinter, as a regular lab rat, could know anything about the Shredder or what he was plotting for him and the turtles.
  2. That since Shredder is a highly-skilled ninja, there is no reason why his foot clan shouldn’t be at least slightly trained in the arts either.
  3. That to convince her editor-in-chief that there are living, fighting humanoid ninja turtles in New York City she shows her a picture of a turtle she pulled off of Google images, not the pictures she took on her smart phone.
  4. That since Shredder is after the mutagen in the turtles’ blood, he wouldn’t spare Raphael and abandon him after he beat him to a pulp and cracked his shell.
  5. That to rescue his brothers when they were kidnapped halfway through the movie that Raphael, April and her camera man Vernon (Will Arnett) drive to rescue them in the snow mountains that apparently exist 50 minutes outside of Manhattan.

Oh yes, this script is a mess, and the actors do a nice job at making it even more laughable through their complacent, boring and plastic performances that could be played better by action figures. Any actor who was not a CGI character was completely wasted in a sea of bad dialogue and bland delivery, looking like victims to the screenplay and to the movie that they’re playing in. William Fichtner is hesitantly the best performance as an evil scientist, but his character is so plainly forgettable that it is almost completely wasted. Arnett is more charismatic and smirking as the camera man, but the dialogue he sputters is so unbelievably written at times that it hardly matters. (Ex. When told that your city’s vigilantes are giant turtles, is your first reaction to seriously ask if they’re aliens? I’m frankly surprised he didn’t laugh when April told him her crazy story.)

But the worst performance of the film is Megan Fox’s. Oh. My. God. What is she doing in the movie industry? Her performance was both disinterested and disingenuous, her expression looking as stiff and uncomfortable as if she came out of a facelift surgery. Fox is not a good actress. I say it again: Fox is not a good actress. Good-looking, yes, but looks only make half of a character, and she doesn’t fit April in neither appearance or spirit. In the 1990 film we had Judith Hoag portraying April, and boy, did she bring energy and enthusiasm to the character. Now we have Fox reading a teleprompter to replace the performance, and I start wondering if it would be better if April was recast as a Barbie doll in the movie.

Yes, the turtles, Splinter and Shredder look cool, and there’s a very sweet action sequence where they are sliding down the snow mountains that I will admit to have enjoyed. But in a visually-dominated industry, visual effects are a compliment I’m recycling at this point. Visual effects and fight scenes are wasted if you have a terrible plot, and in this case, where the bad guy’s master plan is to intoxicate a city with a poisonous gas by smashing a tower over it (an idea stolen from The Amazing Spider-man, by the way), I’m not inclined to say that the movie has much good of anything.

I know there is an audience for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and the majority of them will probably be under 12. The ones over that age will have grown up with the franchise, and will be looking for some sort of nostalgic experience to remind them of what it was like to grow up with the ninja turtles. I too went in hoping to feel some sort of nostalgia, but as the movie went on, I continued to notice that all of my hopes were running down the sewer.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,