Bleak future for “Karate Kid” remake

March 16, 2010

I am likely to see the new Karate Kid film if only for the awesomeness that is Jackie Chan. However, I already have issue with the movie based on the trailer.

Nowadays, big media seems to harbor the perpetual desire to make things more ethnic. Have no doubt, this is only to increase sales, and is in no way a reflection of true diversity in those green-lighting movies. But does it do a disservice to the film to have arbitrary hip hop music and iconic black (or other minority) images instead of, say, a protagonist who just happens to be black?

Consider the first Karate Kid. Here is Ralph “ethnically ambiguous” Machio. A skinny Mediterranean kid from Jersey who finds himself on the blunt end of an early butt whoopin’. The antagonists: a group of white, blonde haired, blue eyed California boys who might as well have been wearing SS uniforms. Whether intentional or not, the film is full of race oppression, and ends with Machio – an icon of all minorities in the film – gaining the respect of his uber-white peers through standing up for himself and exercising self-dicipline and character.

Cut to anything done today, where ubiquitous hip-hop music and animated, over-the-top blackup typifies any film with characters under 25. Let me take a shot in the dark at the fate of our new Karate Kid. Has a single mother who probably moved to China for a job ’cause Daddy left them high and dry. She wants to be a good mother, but can’t help him because her job takes all her time or she thinks fighting doesn’t solve anything. New Karate Kid rebels by being indignant, and an all-around little bastard in trying to deal with his bum circumstances, manifest in petty crime, a desire to rebel against authority, trite vernacular English, and feelings of racial isolation.

Is this really the black character that African-American culture wants to put forward? The kid has corn-rows for cryin’ out loud and couldn’t harbor anymore archetypical black stereotypes if he sported bling and wore his pants around his ankles.

I have little doubt that any MTV-ifying of this classic film’s remake will do little more than hurt the depth of the film while boosting the initial bottom line. Even the not-so-subtle references to the first film in the preview (sure to be rife in the actual film) speak to the certain watering down of this remake.

They’ll make it hip, pay tribute to the original, and then they don’t have to worry about making it any good, ’cause people will see it anyway.

New-to-DVD: “The Stepfather” remake simple but good for teens

March 13, 2010

While the remake of little-known horror film The Stepfather has little depth, it’s just the kind of movie a teenager would love. The protagonist is the new step-son, played by Penn Badgley of Gossip Girl stardom. As is the case with most such movies, Badgley figures out there’s something skeevie about his new stepfather-to-be (the mother is only engaged, perhaps to simplify the “letting go” phase or the legal issues of marrying a serial killer). His mother remains oblivious as do Badgley’s siblings, essentially non-persons in the film.

Casting is excellent for one, with Dylan Walsh playing an intense, off-kilter type perfectly. Good chemistry between Badgley and his half-clothed-through-the-entire-film girlfriend played by Amber Heard means more teen appeal. The “horror” as it were is more psychological tension, where cats precede killers a la Friday the 13th. That’s not to say there are a plethora of jump scares, which would be a turn-off. There’s just enough to keep interest amid other, fly-on-the-wall scenes revealing the step-father’s darker nature.

The ending is a little weak if only because it’s so predictable to be arbitrary. Let’s just say that if ceilings gave way as much in reality as they do in Hollywoodland, I’d live in a one-story house.

So if you are a teen or have teen kids, renting Stepfather is a pretty safe bet for an entertaining couple of hours. Don’t expect quite as much “grit” as the original, but more of the immediate gratification typifying modern remakes (and that’s okay sometimes).

Children of the ’80s ain’t a hard sell

March 6, 2010

I don’t want to come off harsh, but Hollywood has pretty much ruined everything I held sacred and full of awesomeness when I was young. It’s as if there’s a thirty-something speaking to the producers of every major movie studio and telling them: “Here’s what my generation thought was cool. Ruin it anyway you want, cause they’ll still eat it up like Fun Dip.”

Let’s view the tape, in no particular order:

1. Transformers. While the first one was alright, the second movie was in every way the suck. It’s like Michael Bay was given a dumpster full of C-4 and a script written by a racist 8-year-old and told to go out and have fun. Alas, people ate it up despite more plot holes than Space Mutiny and character development than can only be called…enough with the metaphors – there are no characters in Transformers. There is only CGI and explosions. Great for a Disney movie meant for tweens with no appreciation for good film; bad for everyone else.

2. GI Joe. I didn’t even see this film because I knew I would get more out of the four cups of coffee I could buy for the price of a ticket. What tipped me to the scent of film crap? How about the typical Marlon Wayans joke-a-thon, which is fine for, say, a Wayans brothers comedy, but not so pleasant in a film that’s supposed to revive my adolescent love of “fighting for freedom”. How about show a little action without peppering it with low-brow jokes every ten seconds. Sure, humor covers the scent of crap, but only ’til it hits DVD and sells a dozen copies.

3. A-Team. I don’t care who’s starring as who: it’s gonna suck. Why? Because it has a captive audience – us ’80s kids wanting the adventure with Hannibal and the boys to continue. It’ll suck because it can. Because it doesn’t have to not suck. I foresee another long line of jokes and explosions with so little substance that you don’t know what to tell your fellow 30-something when they ask: “Was it awesome?” You don’t want to say “No, it sucked” because then you’re saying the A-Team sucked, which is blasphemy.

So, let me end this rant by saying that if you, too, are an ’80s brat and want fewer movies surrounding our childhood to suck, then do us all a favor and don’t pay for a ticket to a trash movie. It’s the age of DVD everything. Go and buy the A-Team series on disk, or find old GI Joe episodes and make something cool and clever with them, like the mashups of old GI Joe PSAs. Give the original writers and artists behind Thundercats and Wheeled Warriors some cred.

Just don’t come runnin’ to Hollywood looking for an extension on your lease on the ’80s, cause all they’re selling is a perversion of our memories.

Transformers with balls….Jesus!

In Theaters: “Edge of Darkness” will work for some

March 1, 2010

If you go see Mel Gibson’s new film Edge of Darkness hoping for Taken, then you might come away disappointed.

That’s not to say that Darkness is either a poor knockoff or not a good representation of the “father seeks revenge” story. Let’s take a comparative example. When Kevin Costner’s Robin Hood debuted, few remember another film of the same title coming out at the same time. The latter is more complex, political, and historically accurate. The former is full of fun, action, and a little history. This is the difference between Taken and Darkness. The later is – in a way – a more complex version of the former: for better or worse.

Gibson is good, not great in the role, and a cast of other talent means there’s little hurting for solid acting. Some will find it a little slow, however, despite sporadic scenes of intense energy and action. The film is subtle, and some audiences don’t respond as well to subtlety, preferring film to spoon feed clues and motives.

Despite the slow pace at times, the editing is actually quite good. No scenes stand out as too long, overdone, or redundant. The end is a little predictable, but offers some fitting “payoff” for the film’s progression.

Considering all this, is it really a good film to see in the theater? Maybe. But if you don’t see it in the theater, it is worth renting on DVD. While not terribly original, the acting, character progression, and complexity make it worth watching at some point, to be sure.

New to DVD: “Bedtime Stories” cute and simple

February 13, 2010

As you might expect from a Disney movie, new-to-DVD Bedtime Stories is a safe journey through imagination and comedy with Adam Sandler as under-appreciated hotel worker and uncle to kids who can alter reality based on storytelling. Sandler is pretty much how he is in every other Sandler comedy, so take that how you will. If you find him annoying elsewhere, nothing Disney does is going to change that, but if you like him, Stories sees him in pretty typical form.

The story begins much like all Disney stories: with our hero facing seemingly overwhelming odds against transparent protagonist. In time, the hero learns that what he really wanted was in front of him the whole time, etc. This is pretty much the same with Stories, so where’s the value?

Well, the eye-candy isn’t half bad as Sandler is magically transported to everywhere from Ancient Rome to a Galactic Tribunal. Amazingly, the acting is pretty good, too, and there are a few good laughs to be had. Fortunately, the jokes aren’t too slap-stick – apparently the new default for low-brow Superbowl commercials.

There’s a little less moralizing than usual, though it’s always funny to see Disney consistently push family values, small business, and an anti-capitalism agenda when they are a paragon of big media.

The most important question remains: is Stories good for the kids, and to that I would say Yes – they will probably like it. Nothing inappropriate or too violent; again, rather safe and comfortable.
So check out Bedtime Stories on DVD. Even if you don’t have kids, you’ll probably enjoy it anyway. Don’t know that I’d buy it, but certainly worth a pick at the RedBox when nothing else jumps out at you.

In theaters: “Up in the Air” a sure catch

January 27, 2010

Let’s make your choice or rejection of in-theaters Up in the Air a simple one: if you’re expecting belly-roll laughter or Fight Club nihilism, you’re probably better off with another movie. However, if you like Clooney – who is in full force, albeit in type-cast fashion – and you are the kind of moviegoer who likes to sit back and enjoy the journey, then Air is right for you.

There’s nothing terribly funny about it, though there are a few really good laughs. It’s somewhat predictable, evidenced by my theater’s Nancy Drew wannabe who guessed the result of every scene mere seconds before it played out (much to the annoyance of, well, everyone but him). And yet, Air just works. It’s entertaining, true to life, with solid acting and fun, relatable characters (particularly young Anna Kendrick, who hasn’t exactly been allowed to shine in the Twilight series as Bella’s annoying friend Jessica).

The plot is one I think we’ll see more and more if fans show an interest, and that’s the middle class guy who fears there’s nothing much to him other than his job. Since Clooney’s character fires people for a living, the contemporary element of a fickle and heartless workplace permeates the film, though your heart is with Clooney – safe in work so long as there are others who aren’t safe.

If you hadn’t guessed it already, though, this isn’t a film for people under, say, 25 years old. Call me an agist, but I doubt that viewers younger than that can appreciate the film’s subtlety and message, even if they get a chuckle or two from some crafty cameos.

So, while you could save a few bucks and wait ’til Up in the Air comes on DVD, you’d do well to see it on the big screen if you’ve already seen Avatar. Regardless, check it out at some point down the road; you won’t be disappointed.

“Last House on the Left” remake well done

December 19, 2009

last-house-on-the-left-poster2Having recently seen the original Last House on the Left, I thought it right to check out the new version that’s just come out on DVD. With a strong cast, I thought it likely that at least the acting would prove solid, and the new Last House doesn’t disappoint. But what about the horror? Is it as disturbing as the original? In two words: Not really. But the new Last House has its own virtues that are worth noting.

First, the camerawork is excellent, reminding me of the two recent Texas Chainsaw Massacre remakes that stand on the virtue of camerawork alone. Particularly, there’s good use of reaction shots and off-camera action that carry the viewer along nicely.

Second, while not raw enough to solicit feelings of discomfort, the mayhem is unnerving enough to keep your blood moving while watching. This would have been nice to see in the theater, honestly, and warrants rental or purchase for those home theater aficionados out there that want real immersion.

There are enough changes to the storyline to interest those who saw the original and wonder if the remake is worth watching. There are a couple of things that might have worked a little better than how they played out, but by and large this new version has enough of its own merits to stand apart from the original. While absent the typical “jump scares” of modern horror, well-wrought tension and in-your-face conflict bring Last House above most contemporary remakes.

New-to-DVD “The International” a pleasant surprise

November 18, 2009

the-internationalThis week’s new-to-DVD review received a tepid reception in theaters, which was largely why I waited for The International with Clive Owen and Naomi Watts to hit DVD. The gist is that Interpol and the New York City DA’s office seek to bring down an international bank involved in small-arms deals in the middle east.

Sure, it’s somewhat typical “rich white guys secretly rule the world” stuff, but the real draw of International is the action.

The camerawork is noticeably unique, with top-down shots and other odd angles done just enough to add to the film without losing viewers in the artistic. The coregraphy for the action, however, is quite well done. The shootout at the Guggenheim is spectacular, and there’s just enough build-up to the action sequences to add to tension without becoming frustrating (a slippery slope sometimes. Remember Executive Decision where – despite perfect tension-building – the film becomes exhausting and kills the potential for subsequent views).

Owen and Watts both do a good job in this, notably because the film foregoes any love interest or super, slo-mo moments to make either protaganist seem meta-human or uber-cool. Thus, their characters are quite believable.

At heart, International is not a deep film, but a good action/intrigue flick that’s certainly worth a rental or buy. It has definite re-playability, and makes a good film for escapism.

In-theaters “Law-Abiding Citizen” good fun, not too deep

November 15, 2009

law_abiding_citizenWho wouldn’t want to see Gerard Butler getting really pissed and wreaking havoc like Leonidas in 300? So I felt a little predisposed to enjoy in-theaters Law Abiding Citizen, and a solid 7.3 out of 10 stars on IMDb didn’t hurt, either.
And – for the most part – I am not disappointed. Citizen is smart, original, and full of emotion. Directory F. Gary Gray of The Italian Job and A Man Apart knows a bit about shooting payback, fusing enough emotion and heart into it to get the audience buy-in.

But there are a couple of drawbacks in case anyone was hoping for the perfect “falling down” flick. Foremost, it’s a little predictable. For some reason, directors tend to use sound (or the absence of it) to cue in viewers when something’s about to happen. The result is that you know what’s going to blow up before it does, who’s about to die, and often how. I think it would have proved far more potent to leave the surprises as surprises instead of preceding them with wide-angle shots and pregnant pauses (a dead giveaway – pun intended).

Too, I felt like this shaped up to be another Seven, where intricate plans wove together in such a macabre fashion that there was no way to guess the ending, and it would keep you up that night still putting the pieces together. In this respect, however, Citizen falls a little short.

All told, though, Citizen is worth watching in theaters and definitely worth a rental if you’d rather wait. There’s really nothing eye-popping, so waiting for it to hit DVD might be a good call if you’re not crazy excited to see it.

In Theaters: “Paranormal Activity” little spooky, little fun

October 25, 2009

paranormal-activity-posterI went into in-theaters Paranormal Activity with pretty high expectations. I’d heard “it’s the scariest movie ever” and the 7.6 rating (which was 8.2 a couple of days ago) didn’t hurt matters, either.

I wouldn’t say I was disappointed; this “found footage” style film in the vein of The Blair Witch Project and Quarantine is definitely spooky. I would just say that it will be very scary for some, and just so-so for others. Perhaps needing to sleep tonight, it’s a good thing I’m among the latter, but that certainly doesn’t invalidate the very many people in the theater who were scared out of their wits.

As odd as it might sound, I think Paranormal will scare women much more than men. The protagonist is the female, for one, and many of the scarier scenes revolve around her and her being vulnerable during sleep, having a lack of brute strength, etc. These unseen, psychological fears just aren’t as prevalent with guys.

The film does require a good deal of imagination, which – more often than not – is right up my alley. In this case, however, despite solid acting and directing, most of the scenes are nothing I haven’t seen on YouTube a hundred times. After all, when unseen forces are the culprit, it invites amateur filmmakers and requires no high-dollar actors, effects, or make-up.

So let’s put it this way: if you go see Paranormal in theaters and it scares the hell out of you: that’s great. It’s supposed to. If you go and feel like there’s something missing, but you like the concept, check out Home Movie instead. It’s much higher on the disturbing scale, and has more visual stimuli. It’s arguable that Quarantine – to the right person – is just as scary as Paranormal; it just depends on how your imagination operates.

In Theaters: “Paranormal Activity” little spooky, little funI will say that – if you have any interest – it’s worth seeing in theaters just in case you’ll really like it. That kind of immersion of sight and sound is often vital for “found footage” films.