Following the efforts of filmmaker Richard Stanley (Hardware, Dust Devil) to make his adaption of H.G. Wells the Island of Doctor Moreau, Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley’s Island of Dr. Moreau.
The documentary is a fascinating exploration of egos and dreams colliding with commerce. It provides a very honest look, with everyone being brutally truthful about what they were feeling. It is full of downright bizarre stories.
For example, Stanley was shocked to find out that New Line announced the Island of Dr. Moreau with Roman Polansky. They were unhappy with his desire to hire Marlon Brando, as New Line had just dealt with him on the Johnny Depp vehicle Don Juan De Marco. It had not gone well, apparently. Realizing he might lose the movie, he resort to witchcraft. This is not a joke. He actually sought a warlock friend to cast a spell.
Some of the surprises are to find some of the names they had associated with the film. James Woods and Val Kilmer were hired, and then Kilmer decided he really did not like his role. They convinced him to stay by switching him over to Woods’ role and sending James Woods packing. They asked Rob Morrow (Northern Exposure) to try out, and he was intrigued, but shortly after filming, he begged to get off the picture.
Production closed down, and Stanley was fired from the production, which led to a breakdown for Stanley who was totally absorbed by the project. And according to actress Fairuza Balk, this is actually when the nightmare began.
The introduction of John Frankenheimer to save the film resulted in a miserable crew and a whole different kind of craziness that they were meant to be escaping when firing Stanley. Director David Gregory has managed to assemble a large number of people involved and to paint a vivid picture of the failure of Stanley’s dream, and ultimately the film the Island of Dr. Moreau. It is a terrifically engaging film.
Much talk has been given about Spider-Man’s second reboot and his entering the the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The hype is getting so ridiculous that an article appeared in my Facebook feed *confirming* Spider-Man would appear in Civil War. People are so desperate for angles that they are confirming stories confirmed months ago.
The more interesting part is the address the most common concern people seem to have about the reboot. Are we getting stuck with another origin story? The fact that Spider-Man is appearing in Civil War would indicate the answer to be no. The MCU has been fairly good at not jumping backwards. The timeline appears as if they will be jumping into a story with an active Spider-Man.
This interview suggests that, currently, they are not writing an origin movie:
“I think that everybody feels like you know he got bit by a spider and you know Uncle Ben died, and we probably don’t need to revisit that.”
“We want to explore the fact that just because you get superpowers doesn’t make you into a really sophisticated, successful adult. He’s still a kid and he’s clumsy and he’s a geek and he’s a bit of an outcast, and in many ways the superpowers amplify that and exacerbate his trying to fit in.”
This is good to see. Truthfully, the origin movie is rarely needed. I get that there are all sorts of fun that can occur with someone learning their powers. But a simple solution is set the story early in the hero’s career. This allows for amusing and dramatic stumbles due to inexperience. You can still set up the rivalries.
In that sense, I get the idea that DC is working with. It seems like Batman v Superman will be introducing characters who are already active. I am not fully behind the “older Batman” approach…but in a way, I appreciate the way they seem to be avoiding another Batman origin story. Sure, it appears we will see some flashbacks, but comics have always reflected on characters origins in their storytelling. But Warner Brothers and DC seem to be realizing they can start the story later in the career of the character. Really, I think it would have helped Man of Steel to start in his early career, instead of the introduction to his world as fighting a massive and destructive battle with Zod.
To be fair, Marvel has not just given us origin films. The Incredible Hulk was not an origin tale and really, Thor was an established Asgardian Warrior. But Marvel really has leaned heavily on origin films. And it certainly worked for the best with Captain America. So it is good to see that Marvel and their screenwriters understand that it is just not necessary to retell the Spider-Origin all over again.
There seems to be a lot of surprise over the fact that the new vehicle from Amy Schumer and Judd Apatow, Trainwreck, totally favors monogamy.
But is this that shocking? Should conservative and liberal critics be shocked that a Hollywood film favors monogamy over commitment to one night stands? The liberal contingency has given more of a tired sigh over yet another Apatow film favoring “conservative mores” while Conservatives seem pleased.
Honestly, I have not issue with Apatow films favoring the idea that monogamy is good. I will go as far as to say…I think it is silly to complain about it. As film critic Peter Chattaway noted, at this point, should anyone be surprised that an Apatow makes a film that favors monogamy and marriage?
One might note that Amy Schumer is the screenwriter, so that surprises them. But has there been proof that Schumer would normally oppose the message of the film (I confess, I have only seen bits of Amy’s standup and clips from her show which have been “uncomfortably” hilarious)? And really, based on the previews? Did people really think the film was going to favor the lead *not* falling in love?
I would actually suggest that Hollywood has rarely gone against monogamy. Most films about relationships end with the relationship succeeding. The main set of films in the American Pie franchise all tend to favor committed relationships, mining more casual sexual encounters for laughs.
Trainwreck sets it up in the previews…Amy’s drunken dad (Colin Quinn) teaches her that monogamy is a sham, them she meets a guy (Bill Hader) who challenges her notions of relationships…where do we really think that is going?
I have not seen the film yet, but I think being shocked that it favors relationships and monogamy over sleeping around is…naive.
The X-Men films started off strongly (X-Men was decent, X2 was very strong) faltered in the middle (X3 and X-Men Origins Wolverine were big stumbles), X-Men:First Class started the films back to a solid footing that X-Men: Days of Future Past continued with. The Setting in the past helped give the films a sense of purpose. And as they go into the 80’s with the X-Men: Apocalypse, introducing Apocalypse makes a lot of sense.
In the Marvel comics world, Apocalypse was the first mutant. He is ancient. And he looks like this:
Entertainment Weekly recently revealed the look of Apocalypse for the film:
And it just feels…off. People slammed it quite harshly. My own reaction was that it looks like a lame Doctor Who villain or a rejected idea from the Wishmaster franchise. I mean, maybe there is going to be a barrage of digital yet. But some folks quickly jumped up to point out that folks complained about Quicksilver and look how that turned out.
And, this is fairly true. People howled loudly about how awful Quicksilver’s outfit looked. And yet, Quicksilver was one of the most engaging characters in the film. His sequence in Days of Future Past was a real standout.
And so, folks are understandably saying, the character could still be awesome. And true, the performance may turn out to be awesome. I am not expressing a dissatisfaction with the performer. But I am rather unexcited about the characters look…and no performance is going to suddenly make it look cool. I may like the performance and character, but unless there is a lot of post production touch up, I cannot see the character looking less comedic.
As an aside, the inclusion of Jubilee feels odd… Jubilee is really very much an element of the 90s X-Men comics. Yes, she technically first appeared in the 80s. May of 1989. The actress seems like a good choice and they do seem to have hit her style near perfectly.
Oh yeah, Moira McTaggert is in this one…if it’s not archival, there is a 20 year jump in time since we last saw her…are they aging Rose Byrne (the character would be pushing 50, if not older)? And really Entertainment Weekly and Filmmakers…if Scott Summers is a “bad boy” in your film…crap, that is a big misunderstanding of the character.
So San Diego Comic Con saw the release of a new trailer for next year’s Batman vs Superman and…
Well, I am a little more hopeful…but not yet excited.
The trailer is unclear if Batman has been active for years or if he retired, though there seems to be indications he is returning to his cowl.
While I am a bit bummed that we will not have an established friendship, they are clearly coming at this with the heroes fight, realize they are wrong, join forces model. This is, certainly, a classic comic book story. But Superman and Batman have a long history as close friends. I would hope they can do it as effectively as John Byrne did in 1986’s Man of Steel mini-series.
They cannot, of course, give us a long established relationship, as Man of Steel established the very first time people saw Superman was his battle with Zod. And the Man of Steel is our introduction to the DC Cinematic Universe. It is off to a grim start. I have expressed in discussions with friends that I am bothered by the literal hero worship aspect because I felt it had not yet been earned. Granted, the film is likely set a few months after the previous film…and I can appreciate that they are trying to address all the destruction in Man of Steel.
So what makes me feel more hopeful?
The Man of Steel Returning cast. Getting to see Clark Kent active as a reporter. Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor is intriguing to me right now. Jeremy Iron’s Alfred seems to nail the idea that Alfred is Batman’s needed conscience. It looks pretty exciting. Wonder Woman looks tough.
The short explanation of the film is that in 1982 the U.S. government sent out a tie capsule into space, aliens with VCR technology thought we were declaring war and attack us with video games from 1982 (or earlier). The world’s best hope is not our military or scientists… it is washed up guys who were super good at video games in 1982.
The idea certainly could have been a lot of fun. But the film was mashed through a standard Sandler Comedy Filter. The jokes depend on Sandler’s 80’s nostalgia (which translates scattershot jokes based on “har, har-80’s!” with no regard to accuracy). The whole opening sequence is set in 1982 where we meet every major character except Michelle Monaghan’s Violet as children. The jokes reference 80’s celebrities whose careers had not taken off in 1982. We learn Adam Sandler’s Brenner is a prodigy at video games, Kevin Jame’s Cooper is only good at the claw game, Ludlow (Josh Gad) has no friends and Peter Dinklage is a gaming champion. Brenner almost wins the championship, but in the end loses to Eddie.
Apparently, this destroys Brenner, and when the film picks up he is a entertainment system installer, which is how he meets skilled scientist and 2nd Lt. Violet, who is getting a divorce. After a failed attempt to kiss Violet, the two spend the movie sparring in that generic “these people hate each other but are really falling in love” fashion.
The movie is very generic in every fashion. The script has no life, and relies on cheap stereotypes (in an Adam Sandler film?!). Gad’s Ludlow is a creepy conspiracy theory nut who admits to having kidnapped people. He is also obsessed with Lady Lisa, the heroine of Dojo Quest. Dinklage’s Eddie is a prisoner who wants a threesome with Martha Stewart and Serena Williams as a condition of helping save the world.
The effects are good (which is not surprising). The cast is promising (Dinklage has the best performance) yet ultimately everyone feels like they are just playing expected roles. Monaghan is the love interest and mom, Brian Cox is Angry Old Man and Josh Gad yells then trails off quietly in his delivery… Adam Sandler is his usual failed schlep and Kevin James channels his Bumbling Man Character through the president.
The film makes “odd” choices…one example is Lady Lisa. All the alien video game warriors are pixelated. Every single one. Except Lisa. And the only reason I can gather is that she is supposed to be a hot woman. So, who cares, right? Sexy trumps your established rules.
This film is supposed to be a comedy. I did not laugh once. Not even a chuckle. I did smile a couple times where the film moved up in level to mildly amusing. But the film is genuinely awful.
Derek Lee & Clif Prowse wrote and directed in this film where they play two friends named Derek and Clif. They are buddies who are going to travel the world and blog about it, posting regular videos and taking suggestions from the blog readers.
Derek has personal reasons for going on this trip beyond it being fun, he is trying to live his life with gusto as he looks to an uncertain future due to a medical condition. This is a found footage film, using a variety of cameras that give a variety of views, such as first person perspective and so on. And the film starts off as many films of this type do, the guys are having fun, talking, laughing, hitting on girls. And for Derek that is where it all goes wrong. He goes back to his hotel room with a beautiful french woman. His friends show up shortly and find him lying in bed, beaten, bleeding and alone. The woman is gone, but she seems to have left her clothes behind.
What follows is a series of events where Derek seems to be getting sicker and sicker…he sleeps all day and cannot keep down his food. Then one afternoon, while visiting an Italian vineyard, his skin starts to blister until he gets out of the sun. He finds he is getting stronger and faster. While that part excites them at first, when they start putting it together, Clif starts getting more concerned. It becomes real apparent that the strange disease is…well, Derek is a vampire.
I really was engaged by the film. The leads are likeable. Derek Lee is very convincing in his motions and facial contortions that are featured in the darker stages of the vampiric transformation. The camera work is fast and jumps a lot, but without making it confusing as to what is going on.
The film hits a point where it feels like we are watching the final scene…and the film suddenly swerves into the revenge action thriller territory. Luckily, it does work. In a lot of ways, I actually found myself thinking back to how much I enjoyed the first two [REC] films.
Lee and Prowse have crafted an effective thriller with Afflicted. While it does not cover new ground (there is nothing added to their take on vampires) they tell the story effectively and the special effects and camera work serve each other very well. The makeup, when combined with Derek Lee’s physical contortions, has real impact on the viewer. This film has me curious to check out the various shorts Lee and Prowse have collaborated on. This is a pretty impressive full length debut. I look forward to seeing what they do next.
Sometimes when watching a show or movie at home, I will look people up on the IMDB. One of my curiosities is to look up actors and actresses in the lead roles who are supposed to be a couple in the film and show and see what kind of age difference there is. Often, the age difference is pretty large. Only in the last few years have I recalled seeing pairings of equal ages(within five years of each other).
But it is overwhelmingly in the direction that a couple with a large age gap in film and television being an older guy and younger woman. On the occasion where it is an older woman and a younger man? It tends to be the point of the film. This is, of course, not some new observation I am making. I am not under any illusion that I stumbled on something.
Just this past May, Maggie Gyllenhall (six years younger than me) told about how she was told she was not getting a role because at 37, she was too old to be the love interest for a 55 year old actor. If you look through the IMDB, you will actually find that plenty of actresses have no age or birthday listed. Gyllenhall’s story underscores there are probably good reasons for not including Ages. If a casting director looks you up on the IMDB? They cannot simply look at age and pass.
There is a long standing tradition that it is rude to ask a woman her age. It is not actually rude…but our patriarchal system has put the greatest emphasis women have to offer is their youth and beauty.The cold hard truth is there is no good reason to demand a romantic interest in a movie be played by a 24 year old when the lead male is Jack Nicholson. The fact that this is still the norm is proof as to how far we have not come in roles for women in Hollywood.
People talk about how great Helen Mirren looks in a bikini at 70, pat themselves on the back for being supposedly not ageist and hire 27 year old Emma Stone or 25 year old Jennifer Lawrence to play 40 year old Bradley Cooper’s love interest. The thing is, you know what Helen Mirren brings to film? Not a great bikini body, but tremendous acting talent. Emma and Jennifer are attractive, but they are more talented than to be treated as the eye candy for older actor’s arms. And the larger the gap, the more it can just feel creepy.
It is time to stop telling women their age is the enemy. Film and television can help by choosing age appropriate actresses for their leading men more than they do not. Because there are certainly cases where you might be telling the tale of an age gap. But if that is not part of the plot, if your lead just happens to be dating or married to someone ten years his junior, maybe rethink that. You seem very conscious of who you pair older women up with, Hollywood (just how often are Helen Mirren and Dame Judi Dench paired up with male leads in their 30’s or 40’s?). Show that conscientious attitude with your male leads. You might be surprised.
Jeet Heer has made a rather thoughtful piece on the “grown up-ness” of Super-hero films. This is not an entirely new phenomenon, after all, the Burton Batman films faced criticism of being to scary. But yet, the family friendly super-hero film does seem to be progressively scarce.
While Marvel seems hit or miss, some films being lighter than others, DC seems to be making films aimed squarely at the Frank Miller and Alan Moore* fanboys. I’ve have expressed frustration in the past that DC has set a dark tone for their universe. And the next film we get is March’s Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice. And while I think the latest trailer is a little more promising, I still feel like it sets the trajectory in the wrong direction.
Man of Steel was a mopey and grim affair. And the very next step is to pit the flagship heroes against each other? And then we get Suicide Squad? Understand, I have a soft spot for the original Suicide Squad, and by no means am I opposed to Amanda Waller getting back to the big screen.
But the Suicide Squad being the third entry in DC’s shared cinematic world keeps the tone overwhelmingly dark. Where is the light toned DC film? Where heroes are fun? That you can take your kids?
On the one hand, I feel Heer goes overboard. The article has deep implications that super-heroes films aimed at adults should not exist. I just cannot agree with this. I dare say it is a genre that is at home with adults. And telling artists and writers they must write for kids or stop writing super-hero material (although Miller has written fairly little Super-Hero fare in last decades)…seems absurd.
On the other hand? Jeet is right about the lack of fun super-hero movies that are aimed kids or at least families. There are far to few, and while the Avengers franchise teeters back and forth, Marvel’s TV side is just getting darker. I loved Daredevil. And Daredevil has long been more for college students and older in all his formats. But the only fun Super-Hero on TV right now is the Flash. We need more shows in that vein. Superman should be in that vein.
But I have two little nephews (ages three and four) who like super-heroes. My older nephew loves the Avengers, in spite of not seeing any of the movies. They both think Spider-Man and Batman are awesome. They like to pretend to fly like Superman.
I have no idea how old they will need to be to see any of those characters recent films. But I can easily say it might be years. And that is a bummer. I am not calling for an end to super-hero films for adults…there should be room for movies like Deadpool and Kick Ass. I am simply asking that we get more all ages super-hero films. Hey DC…how about a rollicking comedy centered on Plastic Man?
*Moore has switched to slamming grown up heroes and anyone who likes super-heroes over ten. Not a change for the better. he is also a guy who thinks the sexual awakings of young literary heroines is worth writing. Unsure how that is better than adding rape to Super-hero comics.
Starry Eyes is the story of Sarah (Alex Essoe), an aspiring actress. One day she answers a casting call for a film. What follows is a bizarre tale of the lengths people will go to succeed.
As she is called back for repeatedly stranger auditions, she starts to unravel ever so slightly. But when she is asked to meet the Producer (Louis Dezseran) her life is forever changed. Telling her to kill her old life, one questions if this is metaphor or a true command.
Starry Eyes is dark exploration of human ambition. Has Sarah truly sold her soul? Are her actions real? Are the dreams her own, or communication from a darker source?
Visually, it is both stunning and horrifying. The make up showing Sarah’s degeneration is simple, but frightful. Her transformation has the appearances of disease. The film is very gruesome once Sarah’s ambitions kick in. Those who are a bit squeamish should be prepared.
Alex Essoe’s performance as Sarah stands out. Both in emotional performance and physicality, she does extremely well. It is a performance that effectively moves from sympathetic to creepy.
The co-directors (and writers) Kevin Kolsch and Dennis Widmeyer have crafted an effective and dark psychological tale, but not for the faint of heart. But if you like your films dark and bleak, this is definitely in your corner.