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