Hollywood: You're Doing it Wrong

I am confident enough in myself to admit that one of my favorite movies is The Rock. The combination of nonsensical action, Sean Connery, and a bombastic musical score made me giddy as a kid. This 90′s f***-fest was pure escapism, and at the center of all the noise was Nicholas Cage, complete with crazy eyes and mumbly mouth. His melodramatic sarcasm actually brought light gravitas to a story so utterly silly that it made chemical warfare look like child’s play. What I enjoyed the most was the interplay between Cage and Connery, who make a terrible team, but truly fantastic conversationalists:

Stanley Goodspeed (Cage): I’ll do my best.
John Mason (Connery): Your best!? Losers always whine about their best! Winners go home and f*** the prom queen.
Goodspeed: Carla was the prom queen.
Mason: Really?
[Goodspeed cocks his gun.]
Goodspeed: Yeah.

See? Perfect banter.

However, in the years since Cage’s weird action roles of the Nineties, he has become progressively stranger. Even his kitschy roles are not as kitsch as they used to be. He relies on terrible, terrible movies to make a buck (Next, Knowing, Bangkok Dangerous), and has become quite adept at using questionable wigs to “transform” into character. Historically, Cage has only gotten mileage out of two distinct hairpieces (in Raising Arizona and Adaptation.), yet he seems convinced that his receding hairline (though in full bloom in The Rock) is a detriment not only to his bankability, but his characters.

The trailers for Cage’s two newest films show him sporting the same coif he donned for Con Air, another 90′s action movie which pales in comparison to The Rock. Besides his long tresses being entirely ill-fitting, it looks as though Cage isn’t even having fun in these movies.

Season of the Witch:

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice:

The less said about Season of the Witch, the better. I see absolutely no redeeming quality in the film. It appears to be a combination of Kingdom of Heaven and Van Helsing, which is a conceptually unstable idea considering how poorly both were received by critics and the box office. And at least those had Orlando Bloom and Hugh Jackman for viewers to silently fondle. Here, all audiences have is Nicholas Cage in a wig, doing things that any B-actor could do with ease. Just because Cage is in the film does not elevate it above the realm of schlock.

With The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, it looks as if Jay Baruchel will have the opportunity to make what seems a terrible idea into (at the very least) something palatable through his natural, nervous comedic edge. Cage does him no favors by looking gloomy and not the least bit whimsical. A quick glimpse of a laugh is a promising notion, but even the laugh looked more crooked than maniacal. At the very end of the trailer, just as I was trying to figure out if the lady wig Cage wears was attached to that “awesome” hat, Cage shows just how uncommitted he is to this role. When asked if he is insane by Baruchel’s character, Cage retorts with a finger measurement of his insanity. But his face is blank … there are no crazy eyes, no knowing wink, no smirk … just an aging man’s face framed by a bad hairpiece.

A quick word on the prospect that the fourth and final book in the Twilight series, Breaking Dawn, will be split into two movies: Stop. The Harry Potter franchise held out on doubling their money until the final book, when there was a lot of content to put on screen. From what I have read (and I have not read the books, FYI), nothing of real epic consequence occurs in the book. Here is a short summary written by obvious Potter fan Moony Padfoot Prongs:

Edward and Bella get it on. Bella gets pregnant. Baby’s killing Bella. Edward hates the baby. Baby loves Bella. Edward loves baby. Bella gives birth. Bella turns into vampire. Jacob falls in love with baby, completely losing all of his feelings for Bella. Baby is the only one of it’s kind. Alice and Jasper leave. Alice and Jasper come back. Baby is not the only one of it’s kind. Volturi and vampire covens get ready for big fight. Big fight doesn’t happen.
The end.

Riveting stuff. Plus, I understand that the copulation and birth scenes are incredibly graphic and ill-conceived, which should make for great entertainment. Now, I know that I have no right to criticize something that I have neither seen nor read, but just looking at the plot details of these stories makes me lose interest. Forgetting that these movies were once books, if any of these were released as original screenplays, the details would simply be too unbelievable and too unmarketable. An adult character falling in love with a baby? A big fight that doesn’t happen? So many opportunities to make a good Hollywood movie are completely avoided in Breaking Dawn, and they want to make it twice as long? For all those clambering for double the Edward and Jacob, I say, “Enjoy your dull story of a pedophile werewolf and his love for an infant vampire, and please stop ruining my cinematic life.”

Twilight is actually a stop-motion animated picture.

I really liked Shrek when it was released in 2001. I didn’t even mind at the time that it won the first Best Animated Feature Oscar over Monsters Inc.. To this day it remains a really funny and imaginatively told story, packed with great jokes, characters, and creative pop culture references. It was a different breed of fairy tale and, at that time, a glorious example of the computer-generated features that were just becoming popular. And though it’s a dubious distinction, Shrek was also the last VHS I owned. The “Shrek in the Swamp Karaoke Dance Party” extra that was included on the tape was perhaps my favorite part of the entire movie. It was a slick few minutes, but they ended the movie with an enthusiasm that is rarely featured in a Pixar film.

And then there were sequels.

Yay?

I have not watched Shrek 2 since I saw it in 2004, and it was only this summer that I took the time to watch Shrek the Third. It is fair to say that neither film is bad; they actually succeed on many levels in entertaining an audience. But both films lack something that is hard to identify, and it has to do with importance: these sequels do not feel needed. DreamWorks Animation has succeeded in producing financially successful movies that rely on old ideas, producing sequels to Shrek, Madagascar, and Kung Fu Panda (in 2011) that feel more like straight-to-DVD quality. The production values remain stellar, yet the stories and characters (and jokes) get thinner with each iteration. Nothing truly original has grown out of the franchise since Shrek, with the exception of Puss in Boots, voiced with charm by Antonio Banderas. Puss is a marvelous supporting character, and works best in small, brilliant moments. Yet he is getting his own movie (Puss in Boots: The Story of an Ogre Killer) in 2011, and the true test will be whether the film attracts the same audience as Shrek, in hopes that more sequels can be made from that franchise.

Some information was released over Thanksgiving about the fourth film in the Shrek series in USA Today. Surprisingly, it states that this film, Shrek Forever After, will be the last. Will it go out with a bang? I don’t know, ask the guy who forced Deuce Bigelow unto the world:

The premise is the Brothers Grimm meets It’s a Wonderful Life: After rescuing a princess, getting hitched and fathering triplets, Shrek is feeling over-domesticated. “He has lost his roar,” says director Mike Mitchell (Sky High, Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo). “It used to send villagers running away in terror. Now they run to him and ask him to sign their pitchforks and torches.”

To regain his ogre mojo, he strikes a deal with Rumpelstiltskin, the wee troublemaker who popped up briefly in Shrek 2 and 3. Of course, the pact goes awry and Shrek must confront what life would be like in Far Far Away if he had never existed. That translates into Donkey being forced into cart-pulling duty, fat and lazy Puss in Boots trading his sword for a pink bow and the underhanded Rumpelstiltskin ruling the kingdom.

No Shrek outing would be complete without new characters, and there are a bunch. Comedians Kathy Griffin and Kristin Schaal (Flight of the Conchords) are witches who hunt ogres. On the side of good is an underground resistance group led by Jon Hamm of Mad Men. “He is the best-looking ogre you’ve ever seen,” Mitchell says.

So does Shrek Forever After wrap up with everyone living happily ever after? “I hate to give away the ending,” Mitchell says, “but yes.”

Sounds like the plot of every Shrek film, with even more celebrity voices than before. Perhaps there will be an opening rock number in which they creatively display the opening credits … and then 2/3 of the way through there can be a sad montage set to the beat of of a mellow singer/songwriter. And maybe Donkey will say something sassy, and then Puss could do something cute! And maybe, just maybe, Pinocchio will do something weirdly and wildly inappropriate, like wear a thong. Who knows? This is a whole new movie.

Jumanji has to be credited for making the act of watching people play a board game look interesting and fun. Sure, most of the action and humor took place after the die was cast, but there was still that central object that propelled the story further. And though the idea seems crack, the fact that Clue became a classic film comedy is just astounding considering the source material was a piece of cardboard and some tiny pewter pieces. The plot was ingenious (yet simply followed the course of the board game’s rules), and was brought to life with some wicked humor, courtesy of Tim Curry and Madeline Kahn.

Who's going to play this guy? Wilford Brimley?

That being said, it does not look as if the Monopoly movie, directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Gladiator), will be as creatively produced. This is how producer Frank Beddor describes the project:

“I created a comedic, lovable loser who lives in Manhattan and works at a real estate company and he’s not very good at his job but he’s great at playing Monopoly. And the world record for playing is 70 straight days – over 1,600 hours – and he wanted to try to convince his friends to help him break that world record. They think he is crazy. They kid him about this girl and they’re playing the game and there’s this big fight. And he’s holding a Chance card and after they’ve left he says, ‘Damn, I wanted to use that Chance card,’ and he throws it down. He falls asleep and then he wakes up in the morning and he’s holding the Chance card, and he thinks, ‘That’s odd.’

“He’s all groggy and he goes down to buy some coffee and he reaches into his pocket and all he has is Monopoly money. All this Monopoly money pours out. He’s confused and embarrassed and the girl reaches across the counter and says, ‘That’s OK.’ And she gives him change in Monopoly money. He walks outside and he’s in this very vibrant place, Monopoly City, and he’s just come out of a Chance Shop. As it goes on, he takes on the evil Parker Brothers in the game of Monolopy. He has to defeat them. It tries to incorporate all the iconic imageries — a sports car pulls up, there’s someone on a horse, someone pushing a wheelbarrow — and rich Uncle Pennybags, you’re going to see him as the maître d’ at the restaurant and he’s the buggy driver and the local eccentric and the doorman at the opera. There’s all these sight gags.”

First of all, I don’t think I ever used a Chance card when playing Monopoly. Second of all: evil Parker Brothers?! I can understand the difficulty of adapting the game for the screen, and all of this information does make sense, but it seems like the creators are trying too hard. He has to play the game of Monopoly? How long is this movie going to be? Most games of Monopoly feel never-ending, and I can only hope the production team captures the thrill of buying stocks and homes. It’s theme of monetary security is really appropriate considering the financial collapse of our country through the misuse of stock and property investments! At least Clue had personalities to fall back on, even if they were simply defined by status and color. The only character of sorts in Monopoly is Uncle Moneybags, and I don’t think they’ll let Bernie Madoff out of jail to just to play him. I doubt he looks good in a mustache, anyway.

Two intense trailers debuted today, for two wildly (aesthetically) different movies: Clash of the Titans and Kick-Ass. Watch the trailers below and get ready to hear my thunder (and lightning!) afterwards.

First of all, “Titans. Will. Clash.” is the greatest tagline the advertisers could come up with? There would be power in the words if it wasn’t just the title scrambled. Movie trailers rely too much on flashing incoherent words on the screen to provoke a sensation in the viewer. Oftentimes the words are so spaced out that I have to struggle to remember what the entire phrase was; piecing together the tagline from one quick fade to another should not be as much work as it is. The rest of the trailer looks like a lot of good ideas thrown into a blender. There are hints of Guillermo del Toro in the monsters, Lord of the Rings in the helicopter shots, Gladiator in the costumes, and even Pete Postlethwaite. This is simply to say that none of the footage seems original. Granted, a giant scorpion has yet to be done realistically on film, but is that all Titans has to offer? I’ll watch it for Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as Zeus and Hades, respectively, but I know that they will be good in anything… even if they are the titans which clash.

On the flip side is Kick-Ass, which, even though it is based on a graphic novel, seems fresh and kitsch at the same time. There’s not much in the trailer as far as plot, but the premise does sound fun in a Spider-Man/Superbad sort of way. That’s a fitting comparison considering Superbad‘s McLovin, Christopher Mintz-Plasse, stars as the movie’s villain. I think the prospect of seeing his McLovin character actually get to embrace his gangster style and shoot some people as Red Mist is enough in itself to watch the film. And for once, it looks as if Nicholas Cage has found a character that is as weird and subversive as he thinks he actually is, and it was rather considerate of Lionsgate to not flash his name across the screen every 20 seconds. His role as Big Daddy might actually be worthwhile, which, after his last comic book turn in the fairly bad Ghost Rider, would be about as refreshing as the rest of the movie.

Chillin' out maxin' relaxin' all cool.

I don’t think anyone who watched The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air during the ’90s thought that Will Smith was destined to become an Oscar winner, let alone nominee. Sure, he had the potential to be successful in th film industry, but he did not seem to be following the Sidney Poitier route in terms of his career. And then BAM he gets recognized for dramatic performances in Ali and The Pursuit of Happyness. Suddenly he chooses to star in movies as heady as Seven Pounds, and decides to add some emotional weight to a surprisingly moody genre films (Hancock and I Am Legend). There was even a solid rumor that he would star in a Steven Spielberg-directed remake of Oldboy, a violent, bloody and atmospheric thriller from South Korea.

The Fresh Prince is punking us yet again with the announcement that he wants to produce a new version of Daniel Keyes’ novel Flowers for Algernon:

The story follows a mentally handicapped man who undergoes an experimental procedure that increases his intelligence until he reaches genius level, only to then find himself a social outcast. Ultimately he learns that the experiment’s origin, the titular mouse, is deteriorating.

Sounds exciting, non? It also sounds like another go at nabbing an Academy Award. And the mentally challenged have always done well come Oscar time (just ask Sean Penn or Cliff Robertson, who actually won the award the last time this book was turned into a movie). So yes, this bodes well for Smith. But is that really how we want to watch him? Granted, he will probably more Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump than Cuba Gooding Jr. in Radio, yet that still doesn’t make me want to see the film. I want to see Will Smith be charismatic and funny; you know, like Will Smith. Not that his penchant for drama is a bad thing, it’s just that Algernon is the epitome of showy emotions.

And that’s just not Big Willy’s style.