Spider-Man Reboot?

It seems strange to even discuss a reboot of the Spider-Man franchise. I mean, Sam Raimi's SPIDER-MAN 3 was just released in 2007. This confuses me. Is Hollywood so out of ideas that three-year-old movies are game for being remade? It makes the FRIDAY THE 13TH and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET remakes seem understandable...

Which scares me.

Before tackling the logistics of this new Spider-Man, I want to take a minute to observe something. In 2003, HULK, starring Eric Bana was released. In 2008, Edward Norton starred in the franchise remake, THE INCREDIBLE HULK. Thomas Jane became Frank Castle in 2004's THE PUNISHER, which was incomparably better than PUNISHER: WAR ZONE, released in 2008. And now Spider-Man. Is it strange that comic book adaptations are seeing reboots in under 5 years? Is this okay? In each of these cases, I would argue that the first movie is far superior to the reboot...

And this brings me to Spider-Man.

The first of Raimi's movies was certainly acceptable. I actually really enjoyed it. But as A New Found Glory says, "it's all downhill from here."

The second movie was okay, but we lost the characterization that the first film did well----it more was based on action and the fan-hype over Doctor Octopus than anything else. I would have hoped that the fandom of Venom would have at least made the third movie bearable, but it wasn't. It really, really wasn't.

And I don't know if a reboot could save Spider-Man. Not while comic book adaptations like Nolan's Batman and the Iron Man series is critically and economically soaring. In fact, all Spider-Man hype will ultimately get lost in the Avengers film set to release the same year.

But we will have to see. Marc Webb will tackle the project's directing chair, and it seems like a large, ambitious, daunting project for a man with such a small list of accomplishments. But I'm not doubting him, yet----I am just skepticle of the project as a whole.

I mean, c'mon. After SPIDER-MAN 3, it's hard for me to get excited over anything web-related.

But Media Smarts wants to know, what do you think?

Comic book: Amory Wars: IKSSE3 #1

Coheed and Cambria has had an eventful last few months: the CD, DVD, and novel package of YEAR OF THE BLACK RAINBOW was released in April, the band just finished a national tour, and now the first of----I believe----twelve books in the third installment of the AMORY WARS comic book series is in stores, titled: IN KEEPING SECRETS OF THE SILENT EARTH: 3.

This volume picks up ten years after Claudio's exile in SECOND STAGE TURBINE BLADE, and the character carries a much heavier demeanor this time around. In fact, the situation is entirely depressing: he has no family, is unable to speak to his (ex-)girlfriend, and his own dog doesn't recognize him. Not to mention that the forces of good and evil are searching the Fence (the planets) high and low to find him. It's rough being Claudio.

On another note, the series has seen a makeover. Peter David (the co-author of BLACK RAINBOW and industry veteran) teams up with Claudio Sanchez, while Chris Burnham handles the interior artwork. Because of these changes, this volume is hard to compare to TURBINE BLADE. The cartoon feel of the earlier books has been revamped into a darker, more horrific style. In my opinion, either style fits the science fiction elements of Claudio's vision. I actually don't like one more than the other, really.

However, what is better is the story itself. It's easy to follow, the questions I had are meant to be intentional rather than holes, and the characters feel more believable. I truly liked this comic book. Furthermore, I think that the presence of an entertainment juggernaut like Coheed and Cambria in the comic book industry could do wonders for a slipping medium. Claudio has the opportunity to convert a lot of people into comic readers, and that's awesome.

This is not where a reader should start, though. This book would be hard for me to follow had I not the background knowledge of previous issues. Many sites emphasize that this is the best place to start reading AMORY WARS, but I disagree. There's a lot you need to know, I think, to fully appreciate the awesomeness of KEEPING SECRETS. That being said, you can spend $20 on Amazon.com and get both part one and two of TURBINE BLADE. And that's all you need----and they're great comics. The reviews I've read seem abrasive of the volumes, but I truly enjoyed them. More people are trying too hard to be critics instead of enjoying a work of high quality, fun storytelling.

Hey, at the end of the day, it's beats the s#$& out of Twilight.

In conclusion:

AMORY WARS: IKSSE3

4.5 out of 5

 

Xbox 360: Alan Wake

Developed by Remedy Entertainment, "Alan Wake" is the newest addition to survival horror video games and is Xbox 360 exclusive. If you don't own a Xbox, I apologize that you will not be able to play this masterful game. Because, on every front, "Alan Wake" is a very, very good video game.



Summary: The player controls Alan Wake, a writer with a serious lack of inspiration. In order to get away from it all, Alan and his wife, Alice, seek out a vacation spot called Bright Falls----a small, seemingly New England town, that runs off of gossip and the local radio station. However, Alan is quickly entangled in lies and inconsistencies, and his wife disappears. Along the way to finding her, Alan begins to find pages to a manuscript with his name on it that he hasn't written yet, and the pages predict the events about to happen.

The game is divided like a television series, in that each "episode" of the game ends with a cliff-hanger, and the next begins with a "Previously on Alan Wake" introduction. There are six episodes that make up the game, and should last around 10 hours if you aren't the kind of person who collects all the manuscript pages and coffee thermoses.

Review (Pros): The biggest issue that I usually have with video games is the control scheme. A game could have perfect scripting, scenery, transitions, voice acting (which this game does), but controls are usually a problem. This is not the case for "Alan Wake." Building upon the over-the-shoulder look utilized by Resident Evil titles and "Dead Space," Remedy perfects the scenario. Alan carries a flashlight that acts as a great, natural reticule for enemy-blasting. In fact, all enemies have to first be "burnt" with a flashlight before bullets can kill them, which is both hectic and fun.

Overall, the game is entirely creepy----the atmosphere, characters, and plot all drive this mood home throughout the experience. Not only do people attack you, but the Darkness that Alan battles can also harness inanimate objects (like train carts) to hurl at you. As a player, you are constantly on your toes. However, you also have a pretty good idea when things are about to attack you. The screen tends to become blurry or a quick cut scene reveals the ambush. This helps the player from being completely ambushed.

Lastly, the story is absolutely fantastic. People can watch you play and be just as sucked in as the gamer----trust me, it happened. It works just like a suspense series on television, providing the viewer with only enough idea of what's going on to get to the end.



My only problem with "Alan Wake" revolves around the fact that it offers very little replay value or reason to play on a higher difficulty. I wish that Remedy had used an ending system, much like that of "Dead Space," in which you have to beat the game a certain number of times to unlock the "true" ending. The only reason to play "Alan Wake" again (instead of jumping on the "Red Dead Redemption" bandwagon) is to unlock manuscript pages that can only be found in Nightmare mode. I've also been told that beating the game on the highest difficulty unlocks another, higher difficulty. I'm not sure if that rumor is true, but it still doesn't entice me.

If you have 60 bucks, I fully recommend "Alan Wake" because of its atmosphere, flawless control scheme, and remarkable story-telling. But if you want your money to last, stick with RDR for some seriously long game play.

In conclusion:
"Alan Wake"
4.5 out of 5

Source of image: Wikipedia

Movie: Robin Hood

It saddens me that the first response I have heard about this movie is: "It wasn't what I expected." And that's because these people neglected to notice that the film's tagline specifically calls it the untold story; the trailer states "The story behind the legend," "the hero behind the outlaw"----both of which imply a prequel. Not to mention, the beginning of the movie pretty much states in black and white that what you are about to see is the becoming of Robin Hood, not the man as he steals from the rich, but the man before he was outlawed.

This is the most important part to watching this movie. This movie is a prequel. I was severely disappointed that even Movie Bob didn't seem to grasp this; his entire review revolved around the idea that the film was missing the point. But I think a lot of people were the ones missing the point, not the movie.

That being said, I am a huge fan of Ridley Scott. Gladiator is one of my favorite movies (as it should be for everyone), and I really loved Kingdom of Heaven. As stated earlier, Robin Hood follows Robin Longstride as he rises from his lowly position in Lionheart's infantry to the savior of England. That's all I can give you about the plot. I hate spoilers, and I hate summarizing.

Russell Crowe is as good as ever. I don't think he will ever be bad in a movie. Cate Blanchett plays a role (unusual for her) as a relatively weak female, but still manages to keep her head above the surface. The script is very good, the supporting cast is very good, the direction is very good. There aren't very many logistical flaws in this movie.

But I won't say it is the most amazing piece of film ever. It isn't life-changing or ground-breaking. It relies on the same foundations that Scott employs in each of his films; it doesn't change any formulas or try anything new. I doesn't reinvent the wheel, but instead, it borrows and lifts similar aspects of this genre from all over the place. But the movie is simply entertainment. And I have to say, I appreciate that. I appreciate it a hell of a lot more after seeing A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Overall, this movie is worth the price of admission. However, I don't think you need to see it in theaters to enjoy it. It is also a family movie, as there is little actual gore (though a lot of violence) and no nudity or graphic, sexual scenes. And there's quite a bit of comedy, too. It is just good, but you'll have to see for yourself.

And remember, please, the film is a prequel.

In conclusion:
"Robin Hood"
4 out of 5

Source: IMDb.com

Movie: Nightmare on Elm Street

Once upon a time, in the land of 1984, there was a great idea that sprung from the mind of Wes Craven. A Nightmare on Elm Street was brilliant and fresh (originality that Hollywood is seriously lacking today). Freddy Kruger does not kill you by walking behind you, trudging with weapon in plain sight as bystanders seriously neglect the situation. No, he kills you while you sleep. And not in the nice way.

It is a brilliant and terrifying idea, really. To think that the one thing you need to live will kill you is sadistic and perfect for smart horror. Now, what could ruin such a great idea and terrific movie, you ask? How about if there was a remake in 2010 in which Freddy was a child-molesting gardener?

Yes, yes. That could do it.



Enter Samuel Bayer's A Nightmare on Elm Street. And if you're paying attention, a certain producer named Michael Bay appears in the credits. The same producer for these absolutely terrible remakes: Friday the 13th, The Amityville Horror, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and The Hitcher. And you know that thing Bay dedicates his life to? That whole explosion thing? The answer is yes, in case you were wondering. Yes, Michael Bay's patented explosion does make an appearance in A Nightmare on Elm Street. You can smell it from a mile away.

This movie is pretty awful, I have to say. I'll just put it out there. The best part about it is the dream sets. The place the kiddies go in there sleep are amazingly put together, but that does absolutely nothing to help Freddy's terrible lines and the terrible acting. If there was such a thing as a saving grace for this movie, Jackie Haley (Freddy) is about as close as it gets. He makes a fantastic Freddy Kruger. Had the writers actually gave him something to work with, he would have been awesome. But, no. And you know who I blame? Explosion Man. I don't know how he did it, but I know he was behind it all.

There's nothing really left to say. Luckily, it was dollar movie night for college students. And that's about how much I would ever pay for this movie----maybe less. Maybe never see it, ever. Not if you like the original.

All in all, there are some ideas floating around in the movie that could have been really, really good. But that's just it: they were floating. They weren't strung together or flushed out. They were short clips and brief flashes. The movie was bad. Please stop remaking horror films, for the love of god. Just...please.

In conclusion:
"A Nightmare on Elm Street" (2010)
1 out of 5

Source of information: IMDb.com

Music: Year of the Black Rainbow

I have taken a great deal of time to write a review of Coheed and Cambria's latest album, Year of the Black Rainbow. And there is one major reason for this hesitation: this album is so different than what I expected.


It is not like Good Apollo: Fear or Keeping Secrets----which is certainly my favorite of their CD's. People complain that YOTBR is overproduced, that it doesn't sound like Coheed and Cambria, and these are valid complaints. It is slightly overproduced, and it definitely does not sound like the Coheed and Cambria that I know. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing.

I think of the metal bands that have recently reinvented their sound, like Atreyu, Aiden (several times), Bullet for My Valentine, and As I Lay Dying, I will say that Coheed and Cambria's transformation is far superior. It isn't one of those changes that are annoying or so far fetched that you chuck the album across the room, hoping it shatters the first time because you just sprained your wrist and don't want to have to try again. I think that this album is interesting and it has some great tracks.

I would say that YOTBR is entirely the middle ground between Coheed and Cambria and Claudio's The Prizefighter Inferno.

There are electronic beats, measures of ambient noise, and strange guitar patches that have never been utilized by this band until now. In watching the studio updates, they explain that they, as musicians, felt uninspired with the same-old, same-old. I totally understand that. I've been in a band that plays the same music every, single song, and it sucks. I get what they wanted to do and I respect it. And I think they were successful.

My verdict is, I really like Year of the Black Rainbow. I think it loses the progressive nature of the band and is much more radio-friendly than previous CD's, but there are some great tracks. I love "World of Lines," "Pearl of the Stars," and "Far." In fact, the singles that were released ("The Broken" and "Here We Are Juggernaut") do not compare to the rest of the album.

If you are a Coheed and Cambria fan, this is certainly a must have. For those who just a new rock sound, pick it up. If you don't have money, don't spend the money----I feel like this is common sense.

In conclusion:
Year of the Black Rainbow
3.25 out of 5

Source: coheedandcambria.com

Movie: Clash of the Titans 3-D

Disclaimer: I did not see the original, 1981 "Clash of the Titans." Therefore, this review will not focus on this movie as a remake.

And yes. Yes, I saw it in 3-D. And the scorpions were awesome.

First of all, my biggest complaint with "Clash of the Titans" doesn't stem from the movie. I think the worst part of the movie is the trailer. It gives away everything! Holy hell, the suspense of the movie solely relies on the reveal of the Kracken---a reveal given away in a thirty second Hollywood trailer.

Hmmm...didn't think about that one...

Now, if you want a good trailer, look at the first advertisements for "Repo Men." Or "Cloverfield." Those were damn good.

Moving on, I will say that this movie is great for what it is. Sam Worthington is fine as Perseus (though the mythology is butchered), Liam Neeson is good in any role, including Zeus, and the action is cool. Don't expect great characterization, plot, or dialogue, but expect the movie to jump from action scene to action scene with few apologies in between.

The best parts about this movie are the special effects, no question. Though I don't think it necessarily benefited from 3-D, it didn't hurt, either. I especially liked some of the modernization of old Greek mythology classics. In particular, quick glimpses of a certain ferryman were awesome. The atmosphere is created nicely, and Perseus is believable---in a gods-killed-my-family-now-I'm-fighting-a-Kracken-and-scorpions kind of way.

Seriously, what is also good is the theme of this movie: the ability of humans to intercept the deities' demands and change their own paths and natures is an awesome concept and one that is hardly used. And I applaud the filmmakers for that.

In fact, besides these points, there isn't much to say about Louis Leterrier's "Clash of the Titans." The movie is simple, riddled with testostorone and special effects, and if all you want is angry gods and swords and monsters---all with a touch of class---than this movie is perfect.

In conclusion:
"Clash of the Titans" 3-D
Overall Rating: 3 out of 5

Comment on this post; let me know what you think.

Source of information: iMDB.com

Movie: She's Out of My League

Since the release of "Superbad," the content of comedy films has seen a major overhaul. Hollywood created movies like "Role Models," "Knocked-Up," "Miss March," "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" by using the same basic formula. In fact, every movie since has been one attempt after another to one-up the former's raunchiness. Now this is all good fun, but let's admit that its getting old. The jokes revolve around the elongated scene in which the stars of the films improvise bizarre, random analogies or anecdotes of the character's experiences. This is great, really----to a point. What Hollywood likes to do is drive something down your throat until you vomit the same blood-red color of comedy for about a week. Or months.

The best part about "She's Out of My League" is that it is not at all like what the trailers and advertisements depict it as. In the ads, Jim Field Smith's movie is just another Will Ferrell-esque man-comedy. But this movie isn't like that at all----even though T.J. Miller (the actor that plays "Stainer") really, really wants it to be. In fact, his performance was by far the worst part of the film. Something like the leftover meals of Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen. My problem with the actors in comedies now is that they all want to be the same improvisation icon that Jonah Hill or John C. Reilly is.

But apart from Miller, what "She's Out of My League" is, is really, surprisingly good.

It isn't a man-comedy in the sense that every joke is perverse or "edgy," but I will say that there is plenty of that humor in Smith's film. But this movie has heart. The movie attempts to deliver a message to its audience, and even if that message isn't fully realized, its a lot better than nothing at all. Furthermore, I would not call this a comedy in the sense that audiences now know the genre as. It is simply a hilarious romantic comedy. Which was nice.

By far, the best part of the movie was Nate Torrence, who played Devon. And the interactions between the two brothers, Kirk and Dillon, were also really entertaining. The worst part was that the movie relied on the same formula that every romantic comedy ever relies on. No secrets.

And here it is:

A budding relationship goes really well, embarrassing moment, make-up from embarrassing moment, short bit of happy times, then an "astonishing scene" in which the romance is torn apart. Cue time lapse. We then find the characters on separate tracks until a startling revelation takes place in which the characters join together again. And that's the romantic comedy in a nutshell (no pun intended----for those of you who have seen the movie).

Overall, I wanted less T.J. Miller and more deviation from traditional formulas. However, the rest of the cast does a very good job in a movie that allows us to stand back and really question our intelligence for actually laughing with "Paul Blart: Mall Cop."

And yes, I'm talking to you.

In conclusion:
"She's Out of My League"
Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

Comment on this post; let me know what you think.

Source: iMDB.com

Oscars Reaction: The Hurt Locker

The anticipation for this year's Oscars, hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, was appropriate, considering one of the nominees for Best Picture is the highest grossing film of all time (Cameron's "Avatar"). In a tribute to the film, Ben Stiller even came garbed as a blue creature from the planet of Pandora, complete with an awesome tail and long braid. However, something very bad happened. Yes, something very bad indeed. And I will tell you exactly what that is and why.

Last night, "The Hurt Locker" took home the following 6 awards: Best Picture, Directing, Film Editing, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Writing (Original Screenplay).

All I have to say is, really? Just...really?

"The Hurt Locker" easily snagged the most Academy Awards of this year's Oscar night. In fact, it beat out 10 other films----the most nominated in the history of the Oscars----for Best Picture. I watched the movie well in advance of last night, and I also took it upon myself to view many of the other films nominated for Best Picture. There is only one response to last night's series of unfortunate awards, and that response is the blank stare. Maybe a middle finger. Maybe.

First of all, "The Hurt Locker" is basically the Obama of this year's candidates for Best Picture (I am only going to focus on this category because I can't even comprehend the other awards, yet. I just don't understand). I refer to it as our good friend Barack because of what the movie represents, not what it is. And therein lies the problem.

"The Hurt Locker" represents the first female director to win an award for best picture. It represents patriotism in a time when our country has decided to quit invading Iraq and invade Afghanistan instead----I picture the Secretary of Defense with a menu of world countries as he says, "I'll take weapons of mass destruction with a side of Taliban." But that's just me...

This movie also represents the triumph of America in its conquest to rule the world. Oh, you didn't see it? Watch the movie again. Spoiler alert: When SSG William James (Jeremy Renner) returns to war to defuse more bombs after returning home to a wife and typical housework, does the movie not scream "Risking my live for my country is waaaaaaayy better than cleaning gutters?" No? Does it not say in a very giddy voice, "War is for men; that's why I'm going back!" Again, no?

Well, that's what I got.

What this movie is, is mediocre. It isn't bad, no. But it doesn't deserve a damn Best Picture award. Not over a Coen film----an extremely good Coen film. This movie won because it sends the "right" message to Americans, not because it is a good movie. Just listen to the writer's acceptance speech----something like, "I'm a Iraqi war veteran, the war gave me a good idea for a patriotic story, and here's a very, very specific list of statistics of wounded and dead soldiers that were fighting for your freedom (metaphoric finger-point)." Now, I am totally pro-soldiers. They have pounds of balls I couldn't ever dream of...(Wait...maybe that came out wrong...)But, to me, the sweeping of Academy Awards by a mediocre, rah-rah-America movie is more convenient than earned.

In conclusion, there was no contest: "A Serious Man" should have won this year's Best Picture award, hands down.

In conclusion:
"The Hurt Locker" taking 6 Oscars
Overall rating: 0 out of 5

Na'vi Ben Stiller
Overall rating: 5 out of 5

Comment on this post; let me know what you think.

Source of information and photo: iMDB.com

Movie: Law Abiding Citizen (DVD)

I didn't have the chance to see this in theaters. Mostly because the theater nearby has a policy of getting movies I want to see late----or never----and this was one of them. That being said, I finally got to see the movie last night. And it was, overall, decent. And awesomely funny.

First, the movie is about Clive Shelton, (played by Gerard Butler from 300 and The Ugly Truth), a man whose wife and daughter are killed by thugs, and the husband seeks revenge. One of the thugs does not get the penalty that Shelton believes he deserves, and it's all down hill from here----cue New Found Glory?

Generic enough plot, yes. I'll give you that. But each of Butler's movies has had at least some degrees of good to them, and this movie was no exception. The plot takes a unique twist in that it is not only a revenge flick, but a screw-you-Justice-system movie.

Now, the movie does a great job of blurring the lines of good and evil in its characters, which is nice because the creation of the movie parallels its themes. Which is smart, thumbs up. I cheered for Butler the entire time, but his tortures and murders might lead you to other feelings. Jamie Foxx starred as Nick Rice, the one unknowingly behind Butler's...shall we say...frustration?...who is caught in the middle of everything as Shelton systematically destroys the system that failed him. Oh, wait...I forgot...Shelton is in jail the entire time that people are dying...

Hmm...how does that work?

Well, that's where the best part of the movie takes place: the writing. I loved the dialogue, for one, and even predictable scenes were well executed and new-ish. Particularly, Shelton's desire to "make deals" is hilarious. But at the core of the movie, the message really takes over. It forces us to look at everything the justice system does, who it punishes, who it doesn't.

...And then the end of the movie says, "Forget this."

Because the end of the movie is absolutely the worst part. Hands down, no exceptions. I love movies that are trying to make a point, and Law Abiding Citizen was doing just that, until the ending ground the message into confetti, sprinkling it over the viewer. I picture it saying, "How's this for a message?"----but I'm not sure if that is entirely accurate.

My conclusion is that the writing was great, Butler soars above Foxx, but I mean c'mon...who didn't see that coming? From the guy who just released a song about date rape (called "Blame It"), what more can you expect? And, finally, the ending of the movie sucked. That's about the only way I can put it without ruining it for you.

In conclusion:
"Law Abiding Citizen"
Overall rating: 3 out of 5

Comment on this post; let me know what you think.

Source: iMDB.com

Movie: The Wolfman

Joe Johnston's "The Wolfman" is nothing to write home about. However, it isn't that bad, either. And, basically, that is the only way that this movie can be described. In the first half-hour or forty-five minutes, I was very excited to see where the movie would take me. Anthony Hopkins has never let me down, and he does as well as ever in his role as Sir John Talbot: the maniacal, crazy father----who seems really awesome, but don't let that grin fool you----of Lawrence Talbot (played by Benicio Del Toro). What I can say is that the actors do a very nice job in a movie that is, at its best, insanely predictable.


Now don't get me wrong, "The Wolfman" had its good parts. As I said, the first act of the movie was interesting, and I thought I was in for something new and exciting. And let me say that the gore in this movie is outstanding. Decapitated limbs, scratch marks, slashed jugulars, broken bones, and puncture wounds. Am I forgetting anything? Did I say decapitated limbs?

However, what starts as innovative soon spirals down hill very, very fast. Like your-seat-belt-can't-save-you fast. First of all, some amazing plot holes/really poor editing choices baffled me (comment if you want me to describe the moments). Once these plot holes enter the room, everyone in the theater has the same your-naked-uncle-just-walked-in expression----no one quite knows what to say. Also, the scare tactics of the movie were plain and pathetic. Each one, every last moment that is meant to be "jumpy," is only so because the audio is bleeding-eardrums loud. In a moment in which you are 100% sure what is about to happen, I jumped out of my goddamn chair because I thought the theater was falling apart. Let me explain, production team: loud noise does not make for a good time. Jump to the bleeding jugular veins, the broken skulls. Not the dog in the corner with a bark louder than the voice of God. Please.

Please.

Spoiler alert: I will say that the worst part of this movie was the fact that the entire film boiled down to a werewolf fight in the style of Dragonball Z in a burning mansion. And, of course, the movie ends with the most predictable aspect of current-day Hollywood: the chance for a sequel.

In conclusion:
"The Wolfman"
Overall Rating: 2.5 out of 5

Comment on this post; let me know what you think.

Source of actors and information: IMDb