Recently in Movies Category
I've long been a fan of the old "Siskel & Ebert" movie review shows that I recall watching as far back as the late 70's. Back then it was the only way to get reviews of that nature. However, as the years have gone by, there's been a lot of politics, and changing of technical shows. Not to mention the death of Gene Siskel, and the departure of Roger Ebert too due to severe health problems.
I looked up the show's lineage, and have pieced together bits of it. The title graphics were nicked from Wikipedia, no way could I come up with those on my own. :)
SNEAK PREVIEWS
Originally known as "Opening Soon.. ..at a Theatre Near You" (1975-1977), this original incarnation was produced locally (truly, it was local only) in Chicago. It was a monthly movie review show with Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert. After a couple of successful years in local programming, it was decided to take the show national. So, in 1977, it underwent something which is a recurring theme over the entire legacy of the show, a formal name change. The "Opening Soon" name was dropped, and it was renamed to "Sneak Previews". It was first distributed through PBS in 1977, and ran for five years with Siskel & Ebert at the helm of the show.
They left in 1982 over what appears to be contract disputes (I have no memory of this, I was 17 at the time). The show continued on for quite awhile after Siskel & Ebert left. The final episode aired in 1996, 14 years later. Siskel & Ebert left the show in 1982. The show continued on with other hosts (Jeffrey Lyons, Neal Gabler, & Michael Medved) from that point. Gabler lasted from 1982-1985, being replaced by Medved, who ran through till the end. Jeffrey Lyons was the longest tenured person on the show, lasting 14 years.
I sort of remember this tenure. I was more interested at this point in Siskel & Ebert, so I followed them to the new show, and sort of not watched the other guys who were with the old show. I remember Medved fairly well, the other guys not so much - so I did watch it, but really, I was more interested in Siskel & Ebert.
AT THE MOVIES WITH SISKEL & EBERT
Siskel & Ebert founded this show after departing from the original incarnation. Technically (and legally) this was a separate show. The original was produced by WTTW in Chicago, and this show was produced by Tribune Entertainment, again out of Chicago.
While I don't have any specific recollections about Show 2 over Show 1, I do have a vague recollection of thinking around that time that "Hey, this is really Sneak Previews, just called something else because some people got pissy over money", so I was more intersted in this for the nebulous concept of "this is the same spiritual show, even if legally it is not". Anyway, this show carried on until 1986, when again apparently Siskel & Ebert left over contractual reasons.
And again, it carried on without them, only not nearly as successfully as Sneak Previews. This version of the show only lasted four more years (until 1990), with hosts Rex Reed, Bill Harris, and later on, Dixie Whatley. What's amusing about that is that both Harris & Whatley also had tenures on Entertainment Tonight, and from what I recall, the show under their direction was less about movie reviews in the way Siskel & Ebert had done it, but more of a general entertainment thing, still with a lean towards movies.
SISKEL & EBERT AT THE MOVIES
This gets somewhat confusing. Technically this show is still going (until Aug 2010 when it goes off the air), but it started in 1986 with Siskel & Ebert. The original title of the show bears this, going under the name "Siskel & Ebert and the Movies" from 1986 through 1999. The last episode with the two of them together was Jan 23, 1999. So it ran quite a long time with Siskel & Ebert as hosts. That is the bulk of the time. However, in 1999 it starts getting confusing.
SISKEL & EBERT AT THE MOVIES
Gene Siskel announced in February of 1999 that he was taking some time off to deal with a brain tumor, and less than three weeks later, he died of that. There was the tribue to Siskel by Ebert immediately after that, and then Siskel's chair was filled with a series of co-hosts.
ROGER EBERT AND THE MOVIES
Ebert kept going with guest hosts - some were serious attempts at getting a new host (AO Scott, Michael Phillips), some were not (Harry Knowles, Martin Scorsese). The original title was kept until Sep 4, 1999, when it was renamed to "Roger Ebert and the Movies".
EBERT & ROEPER AT THE MOVIES
The guest host thing continued until Ebert picked Richard Roeper as the permanent replacement for Gene Siskel, and the show was renamed again on Sep 10, 2000 to "Ebert & Roeper At the Movies". I grew to really like Richard Roeper, some did not. Here's what I have to say about that... With Gene Siskel gone, that is NOT coming back, so you have to move on. Roger Ebert was still there, and this was still the same program, so you have to accept change. You have to accept SOMEONE. Granted, Richard did a better job than just "being someone", I'm speaking to those who say he will never be Gene Siskel. No he won't. But that's not the point. Ebert & Roeper were NOT going to be Siskel & Ebert. What made that show great from 1975 through 1999 died with Gene Siskel. Given that, I was really behind the selection of Richard Roeper. As you watched the guest stars, you got the feeling more and more they were leaning towards either Richard Roeper or AO Scott, guys who were guesting way more than anyone else at that point.
EBERT & ROEPER
The title was yet changed again in the name of length to "Ebert & Roeper" in September of 2001. The show stabilized under this format and lasted for about five years this way.
This went on until 2006, when Roger Ebert had his thyroid problems, and was knocked off air for those reasons. The 2006-2007 season was completed with guest hosts for Roger.
AT THE MOVIES WITH EBERT & ROEPER
For the return of the 2007-2008 season, the show's formal name was changed again to "At the Movies with Ebert & Roeper". On April 13, 2008 Michael Phillips was named the permanent on air replacement for Roger Ebert, although the name remained "ATM with Ebert & Roeper".
It was short lived, though as Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert said on July 21, 2008 that they would both be leaving the show over contractual and format reasons. Roger Ebert took the "Thumbs Up" with him, as it was a copyright owned by Siskel's widow and Roger themselves, that did not lie with the producers of the show. It probably had something to do with the fact that the thumbs up/down had disappeared from the show some time before they formally checked out. That's probably part of what contributed to the "artistic direction" remarks we saw around the separation.
Although, in researching this article I ran across an article where Richard Roeper clearly calls out Ben Lyons as being "stupid" and being the reason he left the show. Wow.
And so it ends..
AT THE MOVIES (goes into the toilet)
On July 22nd, 2008 it was announced that the new hosts would be Ben Lyons & Ben Mankiewicz. This was widely disparaged by long time fans of the show (some going so far as to create a Stop Ben Lyons website), and it proved to be true, as their incarnation of the show was generally regarded as completely awful. The show's format was changed, expanded, and bore little in common with the Siskel & Ebert lineage it held (legally). Mankiewicz wasn't all that bad, really. However, Ben Lyons was SO awful, it just drug the whole thing down. Had Mankiewicz been paired with someone else, he might still be there.
One interesting note - Ben Lyons was the son of Jeffrey Lyons, who was one of the replacements for the original Siskel & Ebert show Sneak Previews. That doesn't justify anything, Ben Lyons was still damn awful, despite that quirk to the show's past.
I actually had recorded the final Two Bens episode the same weekend the new hosts came on (see next bit). The final Two Bens episode had gotten better then the absolute crap it was when they started, it had elevated itself to "pretty bad" from the spot it was in earlier in the season.
AT THE MOVIES (gets some cred back)
The two Bens experiment was fortunately realized as bad by the producers, and on Aug 5, 2009 it was announced that the two Bens would not be returning for the 2009/2010 season, which started on Sep 5, 2009. They were replaced by A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips. Both were guest hosts for Roger Ebert during his health problem period; Phillips being named the brief permanent replacement for Ebert in 2008. Much was made in the press for the change in hosts about going back to "serious reviews", and "serious writers". If that was the case, then why did they just not bring back Richard Roeper with Phillips, and restore it to the way it was before the Two Bens came onboard? Probably too many bridges burnt there. Anyway, Scott/Phillips are a welcome return to form, will definitely be watchable. Some of the post Ebert changes remain, but it's mostly back to the way it was (if not with the same hosts).
As I write this, the first two episodes have aired with Scott/Phillips. It's definitely good again. Given they legally can't use thumbs up/down, the "See it, Skip it, Rent it" sort of works. I've seen some backlash against that, but I find my wife and I saying a lot that we will wait for a DVD release to watch a movie, won't spend the boatload it now costs to see a movie in the theatres. They have kept the "chair" motif from the two Bens era of the show, the old movie theatre / balcony idea is gone. Shame, as I always felt that added to the aura of the show. Below is a promo video for AO Scott & Michael Phillips, which is worth checking out. Also there's this video, which is Scott & Phillips talking about movies from their past.
Another thing I found out in researching this article is that the official site for the "At the Movies" show has a huge archive of video reviews of movies they've reviewed over the years. I'm unclear if it's every single movie they've reviewed, but wow. That's a massive past video archive, and it's a blast to run through and look at movies I liked in the past to see what they said. It's also a good tool to find out how different the various eras of the show were. Check out the review of Dragnet from 1987 with Siskel & Ebert, Batman Begins in 2005 with Ebert & Roeper, Casino Royale in 2006 with Roeper & AO Scott, Ratatouille in 2007 with Roeper & Katherine Tulich, Indy IV in 2008 with Roeper & Phillips, Twilight in 2008 with the two Bens, and finally Scott & Phillips' entire show from the weekend before I wrote this story (The Informant, The Other Man, September Issue, Whiteout).
So the original show started by Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert in 1986 is still going now under the name "At the Movies" with rather respectable hosts going forward. This bodes well for the (legal) legacy of the program. However...
AT THE MOVIES (gets canceled)
I wrote this article back in September, and at that time, the new incarnation of the old show had just started with Phillips & Scott. I watched several, the quality was quite good. While it wasn't Siskel & Ebert, it was the legal show they started, and I felt good about the future with these guys.
So it came as quite a shock on the morning of Mar 25, 2010 when I learned that this will be the final season for "At the Movies". It started many a year ago, and the article i read today said that this season (the 24th year) will be the last. That's pretty sad, and a lot is being written today about how much the legacy was good, and it was. I've had a season pass for the show on my TiVo for a few years now. Going back into the old show, through the two Bens (although I almost never watched it), and this now final season. The reasons given for the show being canceled are probably valid, as they're business reasons. Not the hosts, and not the idea. There's virtually no syndicated shows like this left that aren't infomercials. That's part of the problem, I think. Here in Dallas, the show is on at like 1AM on Monday morning (Sun night), and leads off a block of overnight infomercials. The show was never treated well (and this was even before the two Bens year) in syndication. If it was on at a "real" time, I bet you the show would still be around.
My brother and I used to watch it back in the 70's, so it's pretty sad that it's finally finishing. I'll definitely miss the show, but as one of the articles I read today said.. At least having AO Scott & Michael Phillips there at the end means the show can die with some dignity. Had it been the two Bens at the end, it would have a different feel.
The show ends in August, I wonder if they could get Roger Ebert there on the last episode to make an appearance. I think that would be a great touch, and a nice bookend for the show he started ages ago with Gene Siskel.
I'll update this again probably when the show finally does go off the air.
TRYING TO GET OFF THE GROUND AGAIN
The time after Ebert & Roeper walked away from the show was spent with a few attempts to get the "old show" off the ground again. Here's what I know about those, which I label "Show 4" (I wrote this section in the fall of 2009, so some of the text could be a little off when it talks about Show 4 still happening)...
EBERT & ROEPER PRESENT "TALKING MOVIES", NO WAIT.. "TWO THUMBS UP".. NO WAIT...
It was stated at the same time when Ebert & Roeper left At the Movies that they would have some new show. That announcement was made on July 21, 2008. They said something like it would be announced "soon", and would restore the legacy of the original Siskel & Ebert show:
TALKING MOVIES
Right when Roeper & Ebert departed, I set up a Google News Alert for "Richard Roeper". I wanted to be told when their new show was talked about. Nothing happened with it after that. It was a dark time, as the old show was only on with the two Bens. Then on June 12, 2009, my alert sent me the following text:
The Thumbs will be returning to television in a new program named Talking Movies, with Richard Roeper, Michael Phillips and Christy Lemire. ...
The alert stopped there, as they don't email you the whole thing, just the first line or so. So I clicked on over immediately and found the link was a 404 Not Found. It had been taken away. What I suspect happened was someone was prepping an article about that, and it got published to the RSS feed, and then deleted before anyone (well, almost anyone saw it). This happens to me a lot when you use RSS feeds as your primary source of access to websites. Anyway, the link was gone, and I could not find anything online about this story other than this link, so I wasn't sure what happened here, exactly. Whatever this "Talking Movies" was, it never got off the ground. I don't know Christy Lemire, but Richard Roeper & Michael Phillips were the hosts who held the spiritual line of sucession going back to the Sneak Previews days of the 70's, so it felt right to have them together. Both were hand picked replacements for Siskel & Ebert (by Ebert themselves), so I'll buy them as the carriers of the flame.
EBERT & ROEPER PRESENT "TWO THUMBS UP"
But again, nothing happened. It just sat there. On September 7th, 2009 I had discovered that Roger Ebert & Richard Roeper had been working on a website project called "Two Thumbs Up". It had the URL of http://www.twothumbsup.tv. It appeared from what I could tell to be an internet based version of the old TV show. However..
When I saw it in Sep of 2009, it was stale, and had been abandoned more or less, there was nothing current when I saw it. I don't know when it went online, either. This snuck out there with little fanfare, or I would have heard about it, since I was looking for info on them. Either I totally botched it, or this really was a small time thing. Either way, not much appeared to be going on with it, although Christy Lemire's name was still attached to it.
On the day I wrote this section of the article (Sep 15, 2009), I went to grab a screen capture of the site for use here, and discovered it had gone. I have no idea what happened now. If you go there, you get a "Forbidden" error, which generally tells me one of two things. Either the site's server has a serious configuration error preventing you from seeing anything, or someone just nuked the entire content off the server, and there's nothing for it to show. Either way, whatever this experiment was, it appears to be gone.
The trademark is still in use, though. If you look at Roger Ebert's current reviews, they're called "Two Thumbs Up® reviews". So it's still out there. But how it will manifest itself on TV?
What's going on, guys? What happened to the "coming soon" (In the summer of 2008) show that was going to restore the legacy of Siskel & Ebert? Some of us are still waiting, and as you can see by this article are still paying attention. While the old show is in capable hands with Scott & Phillips, I want the Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert show to return. It was said that it would be Richard Roeper & Michael Phillips with Christy Lemire on screen. Well, Phillips has another gig now, so he's out. No matter who is picked as the other host, what the heck is going on with THAT?
UPDATE NOVEMBER 29 2009: ROEPER GOES IT ALONE
It appears that the attempt at Show #4 has failed, and will not be happening. The why of that I'll get into in a minute, but we do have some solid new stuff.
First off, on Nov 24th, I found an article saying that Richard Roeper was going to be getting back to the movie review thing. He isn't on a new show (like we expected), but he's going to be doing movie reviews from his website, and via some unspecified "deal" with the Starz cable network. The reviews will appear weekly on his website, they will then be on Starz. I wonder if they'll be sandwiched in between movies akin to what is shown by Leonard Maltin on DirecTV. Anyway, it appears from what I read that he'll be doing this by himself. While I'm eager to hear what he has to say again, part of what made him work I think was being with someone else. We'll have to see how they go. Here's a quote from Richard about the "new venture"...
"I'm so excited about this new project," Roeper said Monday. "As much as I loved doing 'Ebert & Roeper,' this will have much more of an unfiltered, uncut, viral feel. As someone at Starz put it, they wanted 'Roeper uncut.' If a film is a piece of shit, I'll say it's a piece of shit. I love the idea of seeing the movie and turning around immediately and telling you what I think about it in a conversational manner. In some cases I'll be recording reviews right there on the street as I'm exiting the theater or the screening room."
There was a minor stink about it the next day from Roger Ebert thinking that Roeper thought he was censored on Ebert & Roeper, and I could see that, but Richard came out with a retraction saying that was not the case. Still, it made for an interesting bit of back and forth for a day there around Thanksgiving. :) One final amusing thing, Richard's website says "Richard Roeper & the Movies" - nice throwback name. Richard had an intro video initially posted on his website (but was later removed - I don't know why). It parodies the recent movie, Paranormal Activities. It's here:
So Richard will be doing movie reviews. That likely brings an end to the hope that the old phoenix will rise from the ashes, as he's now gone off on his own without Roger Ebert. Or does it? Ebert can never be on TV again (not regularly anyway), so he'll need a "friend" to be on camera, which I assumed would be Roeper. However, in Roeper's article he does leave the door open a bit for a return to syndication, which I'd realy like to see. Hopefully it's with Roger Ebert and the thumbs. That needs to come back.
Which brings us to the other part of the update. Roger Ebert finally spoke out about all of this stuff, the old show, Richard Roeper, the two Bens, etc.. There was a really great journal update by him here detailing a ton of stuff. If you've read this far, you need to read that article too. Roger goes into issues of his own health, what happened behind the scenes after his boot off the air from thyroid cancer, and talks about other names (Philips, Scott, others) that could have been permanent replacements (some of that is covered above).
But the sad part is how Roger talks about the end of his incarnation of the show - the point where the "producers" decided on destroying the old classic balcony stage instead of donating it to something like the Smithsonian. I didn't realize that kind of stuff happened.
But the final nail was when the studio hired AO Scott and brought back Michael Phillips to host the show, Phillips went to Roger Ebert's house personally to tell him. I thought that was classy. Apparently Roger offered to the producers the legal return of the thumbs and his own endorsement of the show (which would have brought a nice closure to all this), but he was rebuffed, saying "the show has moved on". That's sad. That's really sad.
Roger also goes into far more detail on "Show 4" (my term, not his) than I knew of. The reason THAT didn't happen is due to the economy according to Roger. But he says the show can probably still happen, and from what Roger said, it seems to be more than a "glimmer", but not exactly a raging inferno waiting to break out either. But I remain hopeful that the original show's lineage (if not the legal version of it) will rise from the ashes.
Whatever Roger Ebert ends up doing, whether it be with Christy Lemire or Richard Roeper, or someone else, I think there's enough room for their show, and Roger's old show still going on with Scott & Phillips. I'd watch both for sure.
IT'S 2010: NOW WHAT?
Well, it's now late March 2010 as I write this, and it was just announced that the old Siskel & Ebert show (now manned by Scott & Philips and called "At the Movies") will be gone come August. Is that truly the end? Apparently not.
First off, before I get into that, I wanted to mention the appearance by Roger Ebert on the Oprah Winfrey show. I am most definitely NOT a fan of Oprah Winfrey, but I brought myself to watch the show (or at least this part of it) that Roger Ebert was on. To my knowledge, it was the first appearance by him on TV since he was knocked off the air at his old show with Richard Roeper. I had seen pictures of him since, and was aware of his condition. But seeing him can be hard if you're not used to that kind of thing. I was glad I tuned in, as his story is seriously cool that he's been able to fight past all that's happened to him, is cancer free, and all that. The bit where his voice was recreated by a company using tons of his old commentary DVD's and whatnot was really quite awesome. This appearance was like a big step back for me, as he got to announce his own Oscar picks in his own voice for the first time in ages. The Oprah Winfrey website has videos of all this stuff online (for now, anyway). I suggest you go check them out here.
I mention all that, because I think it ties in somewhat to something he announced today that the old show he was talking about awhile ago is still going to be happening. I found that as quite a surprise.
THE TRUE "SHOW 4" - ROGER EBERT PRESENTS 'AT THE MOVIES'
Today (Mar 25, 2010) Roger Ebert had another blog post (man, this guy can write well), this time about the cancellation of "At the Movies". He talks about the past with Siskel again, why the show was gone, it's (as usual) a fantastic read. But for someone like me, the real gold here was the announcement that he is still going to be doing a new show.
Roger talks about how he didn't think it would work if they were just doing the same show as it always was. Which is kind of why I think the old show finally was canceled. It effectively was the same show from all those years ago, just a different tone and flavor, but the format was the same. Roger's new show according to him will cover "New Media: Television, net streaming, cell phone apps, Facebook, Twitter, iPad, the whole enchilada.". That's good to see. I think if Roger just brought back the old format with new hosts, then it probably too would fail.
I also liked this text which Roger wrote.. ""At the Movies" was one of the last survivors of half-hour syndication. It didn't fail so much as have its format shot out from beneath it." He even goes on to mention everyone who has hosted the show (which is Roger Ebert, Gene Siskel, Richard Roeper, Michael Phillips, AO Scott, Ben Mankowicz, & Ben Lyons).
The show will be produced by him and his wife. He wants to make appearances, and says his computer voice can be used to keep him "on" the show, even if he can't physically appear. He mentions they know who they'll cast as face talent (Christy Lemire perhaps? Her name has been attached to his for awhile now). He's not giving details, but this is the most forward I've seen Roger Ebert be with a replacement show since he left the air.
So something is coming. I hope it's soon, and I hope it's got a balcony again! :)
IN CLOSING
So there we are. A twisted history of the Siskel & Ebert movie review show. Many names, many incarnations, I believe I've covered it all. Roger, I know you're online, and do the blog thing, so if you see this, I wanted to say thank you. Have had fun all these years watching, and Richard? I thank you for sitting in the seat all those years for Gene. I even liked the Scott & Philips team, even if they were a bit too much like each other and there was no Siskel & Ebert arguments. At least they weren't "dumb", there was a level of intelligence to them which I enjoyed seeing.
I'll leave you with some amusing videos I saw on Youtube of various funny bits from episodes over the years. These show that Richard Roeper & Roger Ebert could still complain at each other like Siskel & Ebert did, they weren't the bland pair that I've read about over the years. Enjoy.
God bless Gene Siskel.
The Pixar guys are quite awesome - I've said for years they have totally harnased the spirit of what used to be good about old school Disney films. They're also big fans of self references. They are constantly putting in references to their other films, and not always backwards - they go forwards sometimes, too. Like the time in Monsters Inc where Boo gave Sulley a Nemo toy - Finding Nemo had not yet come out at that point.
There is a really good article showing off where several of these references are in various Pixar films. Go check that out here. If you like this kind of thing, you will love this page, I guarantee it.
Anyway, this year Pixar is coming out with their annual new film, this one is called "Up!" As with all the others, I expect a gaggle of injokes, like "Find the Pizza Planet Truck", and "Where's the Luxo Ball?" (the latter can be seen in one of the earlier movie trailers, actually). Anyway, in watching the third (and I think final) trailer (shown below), there's a rather large bird in the middle of it, which appears to accompany the main characters in the movie plot. I'm looking at this thing, and it immediately reminded me of one of the older Pixar shorts.
There was one from 2000 called "For the Birds". It had a bunch of small, mostly annoyed birds sitting on a wire. A larger, stupid bird came up and sat on the line with them.
Anyway, in the new trailer, the "Up bird" looks to be influenced by the "For the Birds bird". It doesn't look EXACTLY the same, but given Pixar's penchant for self-referential characters, it wouldn't surprise me if this is the same bird model they were working from. Take a look, let me know what you think.
This was a great movie in the theatres (saw it there three times), and I cannot recommend it highly enough when it comes out on DVD in a few weeks.
Ordering Links:
Wall-E (Widescreen Single-Disc Edition)
Wall-E (Three-Disc Special Edition + Digital Copy)
Wall-E (Three-Disc Special Edition) [Blu-ray] + Digital Copy
A friend of mine (Eh, eh, eh...) tipped me off to this link today. It's a story that doesn't seem to want to go away. The Tom Cruise in Star Trek rumor that has been flying since the first moment JJ Abrams took over control of Star Trek. That issue aside, you have to love this screen grab I just took. Look at the caption.
I'm sure they'll fix it when someone points it out to them, but I felt like marking the occasion. :)
If you spend any time watching movies, then you've seen the graphic above. It's the Film Ratings Board's image that shows up in front of all trailers. That's why I'm writing. See the text there? "The following preview has been approved for all audiences by the Motion Pictures Association of America". I have a few points to raise about that.
1) The implication of this rating is that there are trailers they would NOT approve for all audiences. When was the last time you saw one of those? Do they have a "red" screen they put up there for those? Is there an actual ratings system for movie trailers on their own? And if you did get a trailer that was not approved for audiences, would we ever actually see one in the theaters? Oh no, Little Jimmy can't see this, let's run out of the theatre in 3 seconds so he won't see anything. I'm sure my "Little Jimmy" remark is why we don't see anything else in theatres, but are there really trailers that are not approved for everyone?
2) I submit that a lot of the stuff in trailers is NOT valid material for "all audiences". Now granted, I know trailers tend to be skewed towards the movie they're in front of. You're not about to see a Blue's Clues movie trailer in front of say "American Zombie". Likewise you won't see a trailer for Rambo in front of "Horton Hears a Who". Still, there are a lot of things in these trailers that are not valid material for all ages, thank you very much. There's a current trailer for a movie called "Boarding Gate" that oepned last week. The trailer is marked with the "approved for everyone" green thing. It does say the movie is "R", but the TRAILER itself is approved for "all audiences". Now it's fairly tame as these things go, but there is still a decent amount of things in there I don't want my kid seeing. Something that really bugs me are trailers like "Diary of the Dead", whose trailers are marked for "all audiences", but are totally NOT for "all audiences". I'm not against the movie itself, just the marking of the trailers.
I wonder which Soccer Mom will eventually raise a stink about "Little Johnny" seeing a trailer for Diary of Dead and making a big enough stink to get the concept of "for all audiences" addressed on trailers. It bugs me, but I'm not the crusader. I just like to complain about things sometimes. :)
It does seem odd/wrong/whatever though. Anyone ever seen a trailer without that "for all audiences", or some other wording saying the trailer IS NOT for all?
I knew it was coming, but the trailer turned up today!
This is pretty amusing. It's the general plot for the first Matrix movie done in Muppets. Pretty darned amusing if you like either of them.
How about some organic fuel?
June 9th can't get here fast enough for this. :)
This is not a review of the movie. It's a few remarks about what happened when I went to see the movie - you can read this if you haven't seen the movie, I'm not talking about the events in the movie.
Well, I went to see the movie with the staff from my company. We've seen Episodes 1 & 2 as a company, so we saw this one too. It was pretty damn great. For the midnight showing, they let people in at about 9PM, which was more comfortable than standing around for hours. So, we're watching the movie. It's awesome. We're getting very obviously towards the end. Then about 2:23AM, we got what you see in the capture from my cel phone below. BURNT FILM!
Yup. The film melted right towards a real critical part of the movie. It eventually got going again, but we missed some parts of it. Without going into what exactly happened (not fair for those of you reading this), there was between 5-10 mins left after the film started up again.
We did get a refund (voucher), but we missed a really critical part of the movie, and I was wondering in the last bit if it was going to happen again. It did get a little ugly, but not too bad - some people tried to run to the other theatre that was showing the movie at the same time - don't know if they made it or not.
Stupid "film" theatres. This is why I always go to DLP theatres. This kind of garbage doesn't happen there. Not that I wasn't going to see the film again anyway, but man was that really REALLY irritatiing.
I have on my Palm a list of every movie I've seen in the theatres since 1997. When I looked at that entry recently, I realized the last movie I'd seen in the theatres was the Incredibles last November - saw it twice there. So I decided to look forward and see what I was planning on seeing, and compiled a list. Here it is, with a few remarks:
May 06 - The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. HHG is something I've known about for ages and ages. This was originally a radio series in England, then a series of books, and then some more radio episodes, some more books, etc.. There was a 6 episode TV series put out around 1981 in England, it's been around for a long time. It was always planned to be a movie, but it never got off the ground. Until now. This is the story of a 6 foot tall ape descendant from the planet Earth. OK, that line is from the story, but in short, it's the story of Arthur Dent, one of the two surviving humans from the destruction fo the earth, and his travels throughout the universe. It's very British, very quirky, and very funny. Check out this book, it's a compliation of the 5 novels in the "trilogy" (More of the author's humour to have more than 3 books in a trilogy). It's a good value too, getting all those books in one volume like that for $12.89 new.
May 19 - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. It's Star Wars, do I really even need to do an intro for this? It's the supposed last Star Wars movie. I've seen 'em all in the theatres, I'll see this one, too. It's supposed to be the best of the "new trilogy" of movies (which aren't as god awful as a lot of people would have you believe). As much as I'd like to take my daugther to this so I can tell her she saw a Star Wars movie in the theatres, she'll be too young for this.
May 27 - Madagascar. This is an animated movie about a bunch of animals that try and escape from their zoo. It's from Dreamworks, who do OK work, but they still don't compare to Pixar. But that's for another time. At first I wasn't planning on seeing this, but after watching the trailer a few times, I decided I was going to go. The penguins in the trailer made me laugh.
Jun 17 - Batman Begins. This is the "reboot" of the Batman movie franchise. It's supposed to be a lot more "like the comic books" from what I can gather. That means nothing to me, as I never got involved with comic books. I'm 40, and my first invovlement with Batman was Adam West in the 60's and 70's. Then the movies. I'll check this out, because I've seen all the other Batman movies. I know this won't have anything to do with them, but I want to check it out. As a side note, this is the fifth Batman movie, and the fourth actor playing Batman! :)
Jun 29 - War of the Worlds. Steven Spielberg does Independence Day! This is based on HG Wells' old War of the Worlds novel. I was intersted in seeing it anyway, as it's got Spielberg and Tom Cruise in it. Tom Cruise I can take or leave, but I'm generally interested in what Spielberg does. Plus it looks like it'll be a Summer testocerone blow things up kind of movie. Which seems odd, as that's not generally what Spielberg does. We'll see.
Aug 05 - The Dukes of Hazzard. When I was a kid, Dukes of Hazzard was required viewing. I watched it every Friday night with Dallas. I watched all of it, including the Coy & Vance year. So I'm mildly interested in watching the movie. I won't be going into this theatre expecting greatness. But it does have some interesting casting. Burt Reylonds as Boss Hogg, and Willie Nelson as Uncle Jesse. And of course Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke can't hurt, either.
Oct 07 - The Curse of the Were-Rabbit starring Wallace & Gromit. The claymation Wallace & Gromit is something I've enjoyed for a long time. The writing is good, the humour is nice, and is just a good piece of family entertainment, something you don't see a lot of these days. I wouldn't miss this one. If you've never checked them out before, you should - this DVD has their previous animated adventures on it, all of which either won an Academy Award, or were nominated for such. The DVD is unfortunately out of print, but you should be able to find a copy at your local Blockbuster.
Oct 21 - Doom. This is based off the now 12 year old videogame Doom. I work in the games industry, so I'm curious to see how this will translate. Generally, game movies have stunk up the joint, and I don't hold out a lot of hope for this either (I mean it stars the Rock - how great can it be with him in it?). But I'll still go - and probably be underwhelmed.
Sep 04 - The Legend of Zorro. This is a sequel to the 1998 Mask of Zorro. I rather enjoyed the 1998 film, and this has the same two leads in it (Banderas & Zeta-Jones). I'm looking forward to it. I also like the director, Martin Campbell, who did the 1995 007 movie, Goldeneye.
Nov 18 - Harry Potter & The Goblet of Fire. Actually, I have no interest in seeing this movie, but my wife does, so I put it here. :)
There are a few more coming out in 2005 that I'm interested in, but not enough to see in the theatres, I'll rent 'em when they come out. These are: Son of Mask (Feb 18 - looks horrid, but I want to see it in a train wreck sort of way), Bewitched (Jul 8 - On second thought, it has Shirley McLaine in it, which is enough to make me run screaming, perhaps I won't see it), and Charlie & the Chocolate Factory (Jul 15 - I saw the original as a kid, and liked it, but I can't tolerate it as an adult. I'm curious about a remake).
There's also a few more further out that I know I'm definitely interested in..
Jun 9, 2006 - Cars. This is the next movie from the Gods at Pixar. These guys are brilliant, and everything they've put out has been specatuclar. I expect no less with this one. It's also the first movie directed by head Pixar guy, John Lasseter, the guy behind the Toy Story movies.
Nov 21, 2006 - Casino Royale. The next 007 movie. Will likely have the next 007 in it, as well. I've been a major James Bond fan for a really long time - I've seen everything in the theatres since 1981's "For Your Eyes Only", which makes 10 Bond flicks. Who will play 007 remains to be seen, but whoever it is, I'll be there.
May 4, 2007 - Spiderman 3. I enjoyed Spiderman. I enjoyed Spiderman 2 even more, I felt the sequel was better than the original. I'll be there for #3 as well.
Summer 2007 - Ratatouille. This is the next Pixar movie after Cars. I don't know much about it, except it involves a rat. That's about it. But it's Pixar, so I'll be there with bells on.
That's about it for now. I'm sure there will be more, as I just went down a list of release dates at IMDB, plus there's other things that sneak up on me, but this is my planned list for now.
A few things were formally announced with James Bond today..
1) Pierce Brosnan is out for good. There's been a lot of ping-ponging about whether he was in or out, but this was the first time that EON (the people who make the 007 movies) have ever said anything about it, and they said he's out. Plus there was an announcement on Brosnan's site about it being over too, so he's gone.
2) The director of the movie is Martin Campbell - who has already directed one 007 movie before, that being 1995's Goldeneye.
3) The movie name will be Casino Royale. For years and years, Casino Royale was the one remaining movie that they never used from the old stable of Ian Fleming novels / short stories. The rights lied elsewhere, and a few years back when Sony was attempting to start their own chain of 007 movies based on some really ancient remake rights that belonged to Kevin McClory and the Casino Royale rights; that stuff was all settled in favor of EON, and EON gained legal and distribution rights to Casino Royale, as well as the other unofficial 007 movie "Never Say Never Again".
Other James Bond Thoughts of mine:
This brings up the really obvious question, who will be the next 007? No one really knows for sure, and there's a gajillion names being thrown around. Of the ones I've seen, I'd like either Ewan McGregor, or an actor who REALLY looks the part - Gerard Butler. When Pierce Brosnan took over in 1994, Timothy Dalton was still officially 007, as there was a 5 year break between License to Kill and Goldeneye. I remember when Dalton was announced as being out I was really annoyed - I did not want to like Brosnan, because I REALLY liked Dalton's portrayal. But Brosnan grew on me, and I ended up really liking him - to the point where I thought Die Another Day was an awesome movie. I really loved it.
So we're back to a new Bond with a story that should have been made ages ago. Granted, the real novel of Casino Royale is pretty minimalistic, as are a lot of the Fleming novels - if you've ever actually read any of them the spectacle that is a James Bond movie isn't there. I'll be real curious to see how much of the novel is on the screen. For example, the 1979 movie Moonraker had only the villian's name from the novel (Hugo Drax), and that's about IT. So the precendent is there for them to totally ignore the story and just use the name. However, I've been reading press saying that the producers want to take Bond back to the beginning to what made it good early on, so hopefully it won't be butchered to death - although some editing is inevitable.
Link:
http://www.commanderbond.net/Public/Stories/2656-1.shtml
For no reason other than me wanting to talk about it, here's some further background information on Never Say Never Again, Kevin McClory, and remakes...
This gives away absolutely nothing about the movie. I just got back from seeing it (I went to an 11:45PM showing).
HOLY CRAP - This was one awesome movie. I cannot say how much I loved this flick. It is by far and away the best of the three for me - no comparison.
I'll have more to say after I've had a chance to digest it, and that will probably take another viewing. This is one heavy, deep, complex movie.
It also helps that I did not watch any of the trailers. I just watched the trailer now that I've seen the movie, and I'm glad I didn't. In my opinion, the trailer gives away too much of the coolness of this movie.
My wife and I got our first DVD player back around the Holiday season of 1998. We've been enamoured with the format ever since, and we've watched "the general public" become more crazed with the format since. However, in all the years we've had one (this'll be our 5th year, 6th holiday season) I don't think I've seen such a crowded holiday release schedule of DVD releases as I have this season. Check out this list of what's being released on DVD this coming fall that I intend on getting..
I went to see Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines over the weekend. I, like most folks hold Terminator 2: Judgement Day up as one of the greatest action movies ever. That still holds up today, as I watched T2 the night before going to see T3. T2 is still great. I was surprised at how well it held up.
And that feeling left me with some trepidation as to how T3 would play out. No James Cameron. No Linda Hamilton. What kind of Terminator movie would it be without Sarah Connor? Well, guess what? It can be one kick ass action flick!
I was utterly shocked at how much I liked this movie. I thought it was going to be bad, and was extremely surprised at how well done it was. Were there plot holes? Of course - it's not like this is the greatest, most well written movie of all time. It's a testoscerone laden explosion fest. And it worked. I'm not going to spoil anything for folks reading this who haven't read the movie. But all I'll say is this. The movie ends so wide open for a T4, it's not funny. And, if we get a T4 based on what happened at the end of this movie... it won't be a stupid added on sequel, either. It will be a great movie in it's own right, which is unusal for a sequel, especially one with a 4 in it.
If you have seen the movie, then you owe it to yourself to read this review of the movie by Steve Krutzler of TrekWeb. In it he makes the movie out to be the greatest movie of all time. I wouldn't go quite that far, but it was a great movie, and one I intend on buying on DVD when it's released. I wasn't planning on doing that beforehand, but then I thought it was going to be crap, too, and it wasn't. Anyway, Steve's review is pretty long, but he goes into length as to why we could get a T4, T5, & T6 and it would all make sense.
About the only truly negative thing I could say, and I admit it's a nitpick is that there was no cool "Terminator music" in the opening credits. I would have loved to have seen that. I'll be curious to see if a director's commentary on the DVD talks about that.
Do yourself a favor. Go see it. Don't let it leave the theatres - this is a "big" movie, and deserves to be seen in the theatres.
