"Isn't the patriotism in your heart? Why do you have to wear it on your sleeve? Like, can't she just be that person? She still is. She's Wonder Woman! She's f**king saving the world! She's not just saving America; she's saving the f**king world! And she's wearing a great outfit and she's kicking ass. She doesn't need to wear a f**king star to be a f**king patriot."
So said actress Olivia Munn and author of the book, "Suck It! Wonder Woman" (2010) at a San Diego comic book invention last year on her opinion of the new controversial costume makeover the Amazonian princess received from publisher DC Comics to celebrate the comic book’s 600th issue. Gone were the familiar red and white striped heeled boots and white stars meant to symbolize the American flag. In the comics, Wonder Woman now wore black leggings and a dark blue jacket looking more like a biker chick than a crime fighter.
Munn’s comments could now apply to the costume actress Adrianne Palicki will wear in the new NBC reboot of the iconic character in a television series this fall written and produced by writer David E. Kelley, whose previous creations include the successful long running dramas "Ally McBeal" (1997-2002), "Boston Legal" (2004-2008) and "Chicago Hope" (1994-2000). Instead of black leggings, Palicki’s Wonder Woman will wear what appear to be blue spandex pants and boots. I hope for Palicki’s sake they aren’t the kind of leather pants David Schwimmer’s Ross Geller wore on a date in that "Friends" (1994-2004) episode where upon taking them off they shrunk from all the sweat and couldn’t put them back on.
Palicki’s Wonder Woman costume, which has been getting a lot of negative backlash on the Internet since its online unveiling March 18 brings up how today’s superheroes, with the help of comic book artists, writers and Hollywood are veering away from the notion they represent American patriotism.
I admit I wasn’t that crazy about DC Comics doing away with the familiar red, white, and blue costume fans have been so used to for years at first. Like most fans I prefer the original costume actress Lynda Carter wore when she played the character in "Wonder Woman" (1975 – 1979) and I would love to get my hands on a 27 x 40 poster of Megan Fox as the superheroine that an artist that can be seen on wonder-who.com, if one ever gets made.
My attitude about DC Comics makeover last summer was if they are going to give Wonder Woman black leggings now, then they might as well add some black leather high heeled boots and replace her “Lasso of Truth” and bracelets with a cat-o-nine tails whip and a couple gold pairs of steel handcuffs and make her into a superheroine/dominatrix.
Looking at Wonder Woman today in the comics and the upcoming television series now, not only have I come to terms with her new look, but I am also comfortable of doing away with the notion that superheroes represent “only” America.
I am not an avid reader of Batman and Superman but when the Man of Steel’s parents sent their son to Earth, they did not program the ship to land in New York’s Smallville. I may be wrong, but America was never mentioned by Superman’s parents in the first issue as his new place of residence. When millionaire Bruce Wayne decided to become Batman, he did it not only to avenge his parents’ deaths but to fight crime in Gotham City. Wonder Woman (aka Diana Prince) is not from America. She is based on Greek mythology. Let’s be honest here. If you were a superhero, are you telling me you will only fight evil in America and not the world? It is like saying James Bond only fights villains who threaten England.
In fantasy world, superheroes belong to everyone. Not just to Lady Liberty.
As the saying goes, “Controversy sells.” Perhaps this new TV series will have what Lynda Carter told Fox News when asked her opinion about Wonder Woman’s new comic book makeover last summer.
“She’s got an attitude, and if this is the new thing she wants to wear, well by God she’s going to wear it,” Carter said. “And I like that. And I hope somewhere in the story someone mentions, ‘where’s the old one?’ And she says, ‘Get over it.’”
Well, I may be in the minority here, but I have gotten over it. And I am not just saying that because the Amazonian princess has me tied to a chair right now with her “Lasso of Truth” demanding I write a column saying that doing away with the American flag colors is not such a bad thing.
"It's not a great movie, but it is a thriller ride, fairly realistic depiction of Marines, and very rough-even the camera movement is unsettling and not a carefully crafted Hollywood story... it's ANTI-AVATAR to the bone, and if it had subtitles it would say "F.U. James Cameron!”"
That was an email I received from a friend of mine Sunday night after he saw "Battle: Los Angeles." Up until my reading that, I wasn’t sure after seeing all the negative reviews from film critics bashing the $100 million plus budgeted alien invasion movie if I should go to a before noon showing Monday, where the price of admission would be five bucks or go after noon and pay the $7.50. I choose the before noon showing but even after seeing "Battle: L.A.," I probably wouldn’t have been too upset if I had paid the additional 2.50.
The reason had to do with the following comments my friend said about the film in a brief second paragraph that gave me some hope I wouldn’t walk out demanding close to two and a half hours (when you count in the previews) of my life back.
“Marines are great heroes,” he wrote. “Americans are caring people, and aliens are not giant peace-loving Smurfs but rather a predatory species looking for natural resources...It's the kind of movie that makes you ask..."Shouldn't we have more arms for our troops?"
My friend is not a fan of "Avatar" (2009). Neither, for that matter, am I. Now that I have seen "Battle: Los Angeles," which grossed $36 million opening weekend, I can verify his comment that it is “ANTI-AVATAR to the bone.” Unlike "Avatar" which was nothing more than a liberal bashing “I hate America – America is evil – America is responsible for 9/11 – America plunders other countries, in this case planets, of precious resources - Marines are gun-toting mercenaries for hire” blockbuster, "Battle: L.A." is the kind of movie John Wayne probably would have starred in just because it shows our nation’s armed forces performing the kinds of everyday heroics they continue to display on a daily basis overseas.
At one point in the film, a Marine complements Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) for his “John Wayne” heroics in taking out one of the alien ships. Then someone asks, “Who’s John Wayne?”
Perhaps the real question should not be “Who” but “Where’s John Wayne” when it comes to the lack of positive war movies where American forces are the heroes and not the enemy. I still have not seen Wayne’s Vietnam War movie, "The Green Berets" (1968), but what I do know is “The Duke” liked to portray his characters as heroes, even if they died in battle, which he did portraying Davy Crockett in "The Alamo" (1960).
I thank God I cannot remember the less than a handful of negative Iraq war/war on terror themed movies that have been released over the past ten years. Like last year’s anti-Iraq war best picture winner, "The Hurt Locker" (2008), none of those films did any box office business. The reason was because of their negative portrait of America and our armed forces. Sure, I was happy when Kathryn Bigelow won the best director Oscar last year. When I heard her dedicate her win to the men and women serving overseas, however, I found it a little hypocritical since "The Hurt Locker" is anything but positive when it comes to the Iraq war. I just don’t believe one can say they are for the nation’s military and then bash the mission they have been sent to carry out.
That’s what makes Battle: Los Angeles such a refreshingly welcome change. No, it’s not going to receive any Oscar nominations but it’s certainly not bad enough to receive any Razzies either. With the exception of Eckhart’s Nance, most of the characters lack so much depth that when some of the military servicemen do go down in the line of fire, we don’t know them well enough to care while the jerky camera movements look as though half the film was shot using a hand held device like in "The Blair Witch Project" (1999).
The focus here, though, is not so much about the aliens plundering Mother Earth of its precious resources and wiping out civilization. It’s about our nation’s military marching in to do a job no one else has the guts to do. In "Battle: Los Angeles," the United States Marines do it without question. There is no political grandstanding. It would be no more different than if this country came under attack by foreign invaders.
I don’t know what director Jonathn Liebesman and screenwriter Christopher Bertolini’s intentions were when they made "Battle: Los Angeles" but the film offers two things: American patriotism and respect for our nation’s military, something sorely lacking in a lot of today’s liberal America bashing movies.
There is a scene from the film, "Observe & Report" (2009) where a detective, played by Ray Liotta, decides to play a joke on Seth Rogan’s bipolar mall security guard character making him think he passed the police exam when he failed. Liotta lets one of his fellow detectives hide in the closet and listen in.
After a minute, the other detective comes out and says, “I thought this would be funny, but this is just sad.” The same could be said now of actor Charlie Sheen whose recent on-air interviews on radio and television have people questioning whether he could be suffering from either drug addiction or bipolar disorder.
Hours after Sheen’s on-air interview Feb. 28 on the "Today" show, I had planned on writing a column highlighting not just the actor’s behavior but the delusions of grandeur that just happened to be reported the same day in separate interviews with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi (“They love me…all my people with me, they love me all.”) and Bernie Madoff (“I am not a horrible person.”), the former investment broker serving a 150 year prison sentence for defrauding clients billions of dollars.
The column would have found me serving as an Oscar presenter announcing Sheen, Gadhafi, and Madoff as nominees for my own “F.A. Delusional Award” (F.A. meaning “F----n a$$). Yes, I would have listed Sheen as the winner.
There are no doubt the actor’s on-air rants against his former employers, Warner Brothers and CBS, that carried his popular sitcom, "Two and a Half Men" (2003-2015), and about his private life made for some great comedic moments for late-night talk show hosts.
Even broadcast journalists and reporters couldn’t believe it. WFAA news anchor Shelly Slater couldn’t get through reporting on Sheen’s ABC interview without laughing on the Feb. 28 5 p.m. news. WFAA chief meteorologist Pete Delkus, shortly before the Sheen story aired said the actor’s crazy.
“No question he’s (Sheen) not normal,” said NBC reporter Jeff Rossen in a March 1 interview with the actor. “But he likes it that way.”
Sheen’s most colorful statement to ABC reporter Andrea Canning about his drug use made me want to use such a line should I ever go off the deep end and need an excuse to give to family, friends, and coworkers for my behavior.
"I am on a drug. It's called Charlie Sheen. It's not available because if you try it once, you will die. Your face will melt off, and your children will weep over your exploded body."
I would put that quote up there alongside the Starburst commercial where the dead zombie tells the guy on the bus, “You’re boring me to death and I’m already dead. You’re boring me back to death.”
Within hours of Sheen’s second interview March 1 with NBC reporter Jeff Rosen, however, it was revealed the actor’s two sons were removed from his home via court order in Los Angeles filed by the actor’s ex-wife Brooke Mueller.
What started out, however, for everyone including myself as humorous commentary is now downright serious and perhaps life-threatening. Sheen falls in that category of other celebrities such as Mel Gibson, Lindsay Lohan and singer Britney Spears whose unusual past behaviors have had people questioning if they exhibit symptoms of bipolar disorder where individuals suffer from mood swings ranging from depression to manic highs or if it’s something else.
I have to say I feel sorry for Sheen, and it will be a tragedy if he doesn’t get the help he so desperately needs.
Of all the comments the actor has said, I sure hope he is sincere on this one speaking to his fans.
“Don’t be worried. Celebrate this movement. And I love and I’m so grateful that you have supported me and the show for so long. I will not let you down. Trust me.”
"Well, opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one."
Such was the comment uttered by Inspector Harry Callahan, as played by Clint Eastwood in "The Dead Pool" (1988). That is a quote, however, I have heard long before that final sequel to "Dirty Harry" (1971) came out. It’s also a comment I believe still holds true today.
I came to that conclusion long before reading all the downright hateful disparaging comments a number of faceless, nameless, pathetic losers posted at the end of many articles found on websites about Emmy-nominated KCBS-TV entertainment reporter Serene Branson’s on-air mishap at the Feb. 14 Grammys.
Watching Branson’s panicking facial gestures as she struggled to speak coherently, I did not need Hugh Laurie’s Dr. House to tell me she may have suffered a mini stroke on live television. Branson, days later, said in interviews that upon seeing her doctor, it was revealed she suffered from what is referred to as a “migraine with aura” which is associated with language problems.
“As soon as I opened my mouth, I knew something was wrong,” Branson said in an interview on KCBS. “I knew what I wanted to say but I didn’t have the words to say it. To be honest with you I started crying because I was scared. I was embarrassed. I was terrified and confused.”
Even if her symptoms had been the result of drinking, taking illegal substances, or being on medications, which I believed was not, I still didn’t find her condition to be something to joke about.
That, however, did not stop others on the Internet from taking mean spirited potshots at her.
“The same thing happened to Obama the other night, but it was heralded as a great speech,” said one post by some loser named “Tim.” Another winner named “gamesfreak699” posted the comment, “blonde moment.”
Another whose name was “Bill Clinton caused 9-11” posted “She just left the hotel room where Charlie Sheen was at. She snorted mounds and mounds of coke.”
Thankfully, for every idiot who made such posts, I noticed several others who sympathized with Branson offering their two cents saying they either knew someone or suffered from the same type of symptoms the reporter experienced and said her medical condition was nothing to laugh at.
I have to wonder reading the garbage these jerks posted if any of them bothered thinking about what they said, or in this case, typed before posting. I wonder how any of them would feel, if while working they suddenly lose the ability to communicate to co-workers, friends, or family members. I wonder how they would feel if others made fun of their sudden medical condition.
These posts remind me of a couple quotes from two movies. The first was from "Talk Radio"(1988) where self-loathing talk show host, Barry Champlain (Eric Bogosian) says, "Sticks and stones can break your bones but words cause permanent damage!"
My favorite quote, however, which I find to be the most pertinent when it comes to Internet users posting online comments is from Thomas Haden Church’s Mr. Griffith from last year’s film, Easy A (2010).
“I don't know what your generation's fascination is with documenting your every thought... but I can assure you, they're not all diamonds. ‘"Roman is having an OK day and bought a Coke Zero at the gas station. Raise the roof."’ Who gives a rat's ass?”
As Mr. Griffith says, very few of any of these comments I have read are “diamonds” if any.
I have no problem with sites allowing people to comment so long as those individuals have something constructive to say as to why they liked or didn’t like the story, column, review or whatever in question. The problem is I find an overwhelming majority of what’s posted is worse than the gibberish Branson uttered. At least Branson had a valid excuse for her behavior. The ones I’d like to hear from are from those who felt the necessity to ridicule her.
I seriously doubt any of them would be able to come up with any justifiable answer except to say they felt like making jackasses of themselves.
The best advice to follow when reading such trash is to just ignore them. Half, if not all the time, I never read them anyway because they’re most always negative. Rarely is any criticism considered positive.
There is some consolation I got after reading a lot of this online excrement about Branson’s unwanted 15 minutes of viral Internet fame. Hours after it posted on the web Feb. 15, the video clip was used in a Facebook scam where upon clicking the link, users would be told to fill out an application that allows them to access profiles and post messages on the walls of Facebook accounts. Scammers would get a fee if anyone filled out the application according to the site, ConsumerAffairs.com.
I do, however, believe in something much bigger. It’s called karma.
To quote another saying, “What goes around comes around,” karma has a real funny way of eventually biting someone on the ass.
So to all those individuals who mocked Branson’s on-air mishap, you people are going to get yours one day.
If not in this life, you’ll most certainly get it in the next.
This year marks the first time since I have been writing for various publications (off and on since 1991) that I will not issue predictions of who will win on Oscar night at the 83rd Academy Awards, Feb. 27.
Barbara Walters last year said she would do no more hour-long specials before the Oscars saying, “I’m thrilled we have such great stars and have such a wonderful show, but to be honest, I feel like I’ve been there, done that.” I, too, share the same sentiment. Or, to put it more bluntly in Walters’ words, “I think I’m sick of them.”
The Oscars, for me, have become too predictable, like a lot of today’s movies. Every year it’s the same debate. Immediately following the nominations, we hear movies critics and entertainment television show reporters and magazine writers commenting about who got snubbed. I could tell you, for example, why actress Mila Kunis failed to land nomination playing the rival ballerina in “Black Swan” and why the documentary “Waiting for Superman” about the country’s failing education system did not make the cut. But I’m not going to. Chances are you’ve probably heard the reasons already if you really care.
I’m tired of reiterating the usual tired comment about how one doesn’t need to be a brain surgeon to figure out who is going to win. Hell, one doesn’t even have to see every single film nominated, All one has to do is read up on how many times the actor, actress or director has been passed over to narrow down who the winner will be. Or for that matter, determine which two films have the most nominations. At that point one can determine which will be the front runner for best picture.
Of the 10 best films nominated for best picture this year, I have, so far, only seen six. Of those six, the only two I can justify seeing are “Toy Story 3, which would be to watch all three films together since I haven’t seen the first two in years, and “Inception,” because I did not exactly understand it the first time. (I fell asleep watching it).
I consider the other four I have seen, (“The Social Network”, “True Grit”, “The Fighter”, and “Black Swan”), to be one-hit wonders. Sure, they all made over (or are coming close to grossing over) $100 million. Let’s be honest; how many of you can justify seeing these movies again when they hit video-on-demand and pay-tv months from now? Of those four, I liked three of them, but that doesn’t mean I want to see them again (unless it’s to write a review).
That being said, despite my no longer wishing to make my usual predictions in the form of some boring long-winded article I get no compensation whatsoever for writing (don’t tell me you actually think I am getting paid to do this or that I’m doing this for my health), I will still take off work on Sunday Feb. 27 (until they move the telecast to Monday nights) to watch them, mainly because I still find them enjoyable.
The one thing that has always kept me drawn to the Oscars is how consistent the show has been in delivering at least one or two surprises that give viewers and the entertainment media something to talk about the next day. That alone makes sitting through the three-hour plus telecasts less painful.
Who can forget Ben Stiller’s imitation of Joaquin Phoenix’s talk show appearance on the “Late Show with David Letterman” at the 2009 Oscars? Watching last year’s Oscar telecast, I wondered why George Clooney was in a bad mood. What got everyone talking, even on the Internet as the telecast was still on the air, was how the Academy left late actress Farah Fawcett out of the tributes.
On that level, the Oscars are like the Super Bowl where the most memorable moments are usually the clever commercials, if not the halftime show. This year it was a kid in a mini-Darth Vader suit trying to use “The Force” and Christina Aguilera’s self-destructive rendition of “The Star-Spangled Banner”.
If there is one thing I will find of interest with this year’s Oscar telecast, it will be to see how James Franco and Anne Hathaway fare as hosts. Rest assured, if the two fail miserably and ratings are down, as they have been in recent years viewers will likely be asking themselves one question.
“What were the producers thinking when they decided to ask them to host?”
I guess I should be thankful I only listed 8 movies I found to be the worst of 2010 versus the usual 10 or more. Hollywood needs to start paying me to sit through this stuff instead of my paying them.
“Kick-Ass”: I don’t mind mindless cartoonish violence. The trouble with “Kick-Ass”, in which a nerdy high school kid named Dave (Aaron Johnson) gets inspired to become a superhero crimefighter named “Kick-Ass” because of the comic books he avidly reads, is that fantasy and reality don’t mix. Kick-Ass’ sudden popularity gives a widowed father and former police officer code named “Big Daddy” (Nicolas Cage) along with his 11-year-old daughter, code named “Hit Girl” (Chloe Grace Moritz), to become superheroes themselves as a means to settle a vendetta they have against a local mobster (Mark Strong). The film boasts less than a handful of humorous scenes with mock references to Batman and Superman as Dave’s friends, who have no idea he is “Kick-Ass”, asking themselves if Kick-Ass and another overnight superhero sensation named Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) were in a fight, who would win. It’s like listening to die-hard Star Wars geeks ask each other if Darth Vader went up against Darth Maul, who would be victorious, or to be more precise, Batman versus Superman. Unfortunately, every memorable sequence like that is quickly ruined by unsettlingly violent sequences as when Hit Girl delivers her own brand of vigilante justice to the bad guys, all of whom eventually lie dead on the floor. There is something wrong when we see high school kids, in particular, an 11-year-old girl, acting out the same kind of blood thirsty violence that adult characters in movies do, like as though seeing someone crushed to death inside a trash compactor will have no effect on someone that young. I suppose I should be thankful that characters like Kick-Ass and Hit Girl killed off only the ones who had it coming to them. Their desire to become superheroes came from the comic books, if not from Big Daddy. At least they weren’t playing Doom and watching “Natural Born Killers” (1994) like the two young killers did as inspiration to murder fellow classmates at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado back in 1999 for no good reason.
“The Last Airbender”: Director M. Night Shyamalan’s fantasy based on the animated Nickelodeon cartoon series I have not seen is bad on so many levels I have no idea where to begin. I’d have to refer to the notes I should have taken while watching the film. I took none and I don’t know if it was because I was so taken aback by how bad this $150 million budgeted travesty was that I forgot. The film doesn’t even have the nerve to be a fun bad movie; one where you can at least get a few laughs while watching it. Even the special effects by the technological gurus at George Lucas’ Industrial Light and Magic who handled the Star Wars movies (1977-2005) are a visual eye sore and that’s without the cheap 3D sunglasses. Fans, mostly kids of the Nickelodeon television show will be quick to embrace the big screen version, if for no other reason that the film is in 3D and focuses on the story of a young boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) who is to quote the Star Wars prequels, “The Chosen One” who can bring the Water, Air and Earth Nations together to stop the Fire Nation (hint-their ships run on pyrotechnics and dark smoke) from world domination with the help of his mind bending skills and I assume his karate or judo expertise. I am not sure kids will feel the same way about the film as they get older. Ever since Shyamalan surprised audiences with the supernatural thriller, “The Sixth Sense” (1999), his greatest weakness has been how his supernatural/science fiction/horror movies always end with an unexpected twist. They are like eating a box of Cracker Jacks with a surprise inside. “The Last Airbender” offers no surprising twists near the end other than revealing once the end credits have rolled that Shyamalan made a bad movie.
“The Lovely Bones”: Every notable filmmaker makes a dud now and then. Steven Spielberg had “1941” (1979). Francis Ford Coppola had “One from the Heart” (1982). George Lucas had “Howard the Duck” (1986) and depending on who one talks to, the Star Wars prequels (1999-2005). Now Oscar winning director Peter Jackson, best known for the epic The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003) and the faithful but extra-long “King Kong” (2005) delivers this depressingly morbid story about a young girl (Saorise Ronan) who is murdered by the child molester (Stanley Tucci) across the street. The film is told from the dead girl’s point of view in her own version of Heaven, or Purgatory depending on your religious beliefs about the afterlife as she observes her grieving family’s attempt to cope with her untimely passing. Fans of author Alice Sebold’s 2002 book, on which the film is based, criticized how the dead girl’s murder was not done in more graphic detail. On that level I was thankful. I can also understand the reason Jackson chose this as his next project was, he thought he could incorporate fantasy type sequences creating a beautiful world for the dead girl to roam through. The trouble is once you take out those fantasy sequences, all that’s left is the kind of sad child abduction story we see told too often on the evening news. A child is abducted and murdered. Family members are left to grieve. Police have few leads, and the killer gets his eventual just deserts.
“MacGruber”: Here is an example of the kind of gutter bathroom humor you will find in MacGruber. In one scene, to distract the bad guys, ex-Green Beret, Navy Seal, Army Ranger MacGruber (Will Forte) strips naked and does a little dance with a stick of celery sticking out his ass. In the next scene once the bad guys have been taken out, MacGruber, this time back in civilian clothes, chomps down on that same stick of celery, which his partner and love interest Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig) calls gross. “Relax, I washed it,” MacGruber says as he takes another bite of what was sticking up his rear end minutes before. The villain who MacGruber is assigned to take out is called Dieter Von Cunth, played by a surprisingly pudgy Val Kilmer (“The Doors”-1991) who has plans to wipe out the entire United States government with a missile when the president makes his speech before congress. Given the film’s below the waist bathroom humor, I suspect there is only one reason why Kilmer’s character is called “Cunth.” It’s so MacGruber can utter the same word numerous times but without the “h” at the end, which I won’t say here except to say it’s a word men and women don’t like being called. MacGruber only appeals to two kinds of viewers. The first are those adults, who as kids, failed to graduate kindergarten and bribed teachers to pass them through grade school. To this day, they still find such scenes like the ones I am about to describe here laugh out loud funny as seeing the hero urinate on the villain’s burning corpse near the end, for example. Or seeing MacGruber have sex with the ghost of his dead wife (Maya Rudolph) at a cemetery, asking someone to either suck his you know what or say to someone how honored they’d be if they were asked to suck someone else’s you know what, and drawing pictures of taking a dump on someone they don’t like. I think the only reason the film had no fart jokes in it is because it was already done plenty of times in a “South Park” or “Family Guy” episode. The second group, and there must be a very small, miniscule group of people out there given the film’s box office take of just $4 million opening weekend at number 6 (not good for a debut), appeals only to those familiar with Forte’s character on “Saturday Night Live.” There is only one person to blame for this latest grossly unfunny, unnecessary SNL turned movie idea’s box office failure and that lies solely on the shoulders of Forte, who also wrote the screenplay. As his character says when taken off the case by his superior officer (Powers Boothe), “I have only myself to blame.”
“A Nightmare on Elm Street”: There is only one reason why this most unnecessary remake of Wes Craven’s 1984 horror classic grossed over $32 million opening weekend making it number one at the box office. The answer has to do with Jackie Earle Haley, last seen as the faceless anti-hero Rorschach in last Spring’s anti-hero epic, “Watchmen” (2009). Here Haley now dons the black and red striped sweater, hat, and four bladed metallic hand as a supernatural child serial murderer who haunts the dreams of high school teenagers on Elm Street. I know in the minds of horror geeks, were it not for the desire to see Haley as Freddy Krueger in a role first made famous by Robert Englund back in over a handful of follow-ups the past two decades, there would be no reason to see this retread of “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” When will horror want-to-be movie makers learn the reason films like Craven’s original Nightmare was so effective in a fun, creepy way, and even suspenseful, was because they were made on very low budgets. The original was by no means a classic but the idea was clever in a grotesque way. This latest Elm Street reincarnation is a nightmare and not the kind where you are scared to go to sleep. It’s the kind where you are so bored watching what’s on screen, you are fighting to stay awake. There is no jump out of your seat surprises like in the predecessor as Freddy terrorizes his victims with his metallic four clawed hand wherever and whenever they are sleeping from classrooms and basements to bathrooms and bedrooms. For horror buffs younger than twenty with little or no knowledge that there was an original “A Nightmare on Elm Street” decades before, they will be more than happy to accept Haley as their Freddy Krueger. For us old folks like me who tire of Hollywood revamping the old stuff, there is only ONE Freddy Kruger, and he was the nightmarish ghoul Robert Englund played. This redo makes me want to say, “Goodnight Freddy and good riddance.”
“Piranha 3D”: “There’s a sucker born every minute,” according to P.T. Barnum. I was one of those who fell for the “Piranha 3D” trailer though my interest in seeing it was not necessarily the curiosity factor to see how the remake would be turned into a bloodbath. My curiosity stemmed from the casting of Richard Dreyfuss (in a cameo echoing his other character in “Jaws” (1975) as he sings “Show me the way to go home” before becoming lunch meat. Also featured was Academy Award nominee Elisabeth Shue (what was the last movie she did?) as a local sheriff, Ving Rhames, Jerry O’Connell, and Christopher Lloyd. For the first half hour, “Piranha 3D” offered some promise that this might not be so much a remake as it may be a fun homage to Steven Spielberg’s “Jaws.” Instead of a great white shark bringing about financial ruin for a beachfront town, it’s a slew of prehistoric fish. Then the piranha strike and the remaining hour is dedicated to devising lots of gruesome ways for young spring break vacationers to become members of a food chain. This might be entertaining for horror enthusiasts who crave nothing more. That’s not what the original 1978 version, which was done on a very low budget, offered. The predecessor, much like a lot of effective horror cult movies of the past did, proved filmmakers can make viewers uneasy without a huge budget. Even more of a joke was the 3D where the sunglasses provided were even cheaper than the black plastic ones moviegoers get when they see movies in 3D on Imax. I could not tell what the fish were biting and the only real good laugh, which could be seen as a clever piece of shock value is when one of the piranha bites off Jerry O’Connell’s penis and spits it out. I felt a lot like that piranha did. Just days before I ate a Chicago Italian sausage sandwich where the meat was “hard” and burnt and I too, felt like spitting it out.
“Skyline”: I am starting to wonder if filmmakers are not so much interested in wowing audiences with a great story and characters as they are in love with today’s computer software technology they can use to make movies. According to IMDB trivia there was no screenplay for “Skyline” written yet when the clever trailer appeared late last year, which showed a clip of former CBS news anchor Dan Rather talking about aliens visiting from outer space. “Skyline” is just one big alien invasion monster movie where nothing makes any sense and where the hope of humanity rests on a small group of rich condo residents and partygoers whose brains and spinal cords eventually become alien food. This movie has everything in terms of visuals except intelligence, which explains why those monsters from outer space needed those human brains.
Close But No Cigar Movies – Films that weren’t necessarily the worst and “almost” succeeded in winning me over but failed in the end: “The A-Team”, “After.Life”, “Case 39”, “The Crazies”, “Date Night”, “Edge of Darkness”, “The Expendables”, “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows: Part 1”, “Hereafter”, “Jonah Hex”, “The Last Exorcism”, “Legion”, “The Losers”, “Machete”, “The Next Three Days”, “The Other Guys”, “Paranormal Activity 2”, “Predators”, “Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time”, “Red”, “Repo Men”, “Robin Hood”, “The Runaways”, “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”.
