Mon - October 30, 2006
Death of a President
Death of a President appears to be creating some controversy, but the finished product isn't really that outrageous. Yes, this fictional documentary does feature the assassination of President Bush in Chicago in 2007, but the movie is more of a realistic political essay than the anti-Bush screed some people seem to be imagining. I suppose that using a real president makes it exploitive to some degree, but the assassination itself is portrayed so quickly it may as well be offscreen.
"We must stay the course on never saying 'stay the course'."
The movie is mostly made up of interviews with various fictional people, including a Bush speechwriter, an FBI agent in charge of security, some witnesses and a early suspects in the shooting, etc. It's about as gripping as any talky documentary on any subject can be. There is a plot twist towards the end, but the documentary style keeps the twist from being presented in a very dramatic way. There's very little story here for a 90 minute movie.
Posted at 09:49 PM
Sun - September 24, 2006
I think the original title, "Truth, Justice and the American Way" was probably a better one for this biopic on George Reeves. It's a pretty good movie, greatly helped by a stellar cast including Ben Affleck as Reeves, Adrien Brody as a private detective hired to investigate Reeve's apparent suicide, Diane Lane as Toni Mannix and Bob Hoskins as Eddie Mannix. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the movie is that, unlike what I gather about the other Hollywood mystery movie in theaters right now, The Black Dahlia, is that in the end Hollywoodland actually comes down on the side of the simplest and most obvious explanation for Reeves' death. Oh, and I liked how the color slowly leeches into the movie as the story progresses. (The still above is from the beginning of the movie.) Beyond that, prove Hugo Chavez wrong and go see it while you still have a chance.
Posted at 10:15 PM
Tue - September 19, 2006
I am so behind on movies. Somehow, after a summer of almost nothing, like 10 movies opened in the last three weeks that I want to see, and on the three weeks I'd be least likely to go see them. Better go see the oldest ones first...
I'm actually at a loss to figure out which Dick Cheney joke I should use.
Crank is not the Walter Matthau biopic I've been waiting for, but essentially Grand Theft Auto: The Movie. The flick makes no attempt to hide its aspirations to be Grand Theft Auto: The Movie, with video game-themed titles and only the barest attempt to make the main character less than completely reprehensible.
That main character is Chevy, as played by Jason Statham. Chevy is a hitman who has been poisoned with the "Beijing Cocktail," a drug that will kill him unless he keeps his adrenaline going. Chevy therefore goes around starting fights and stealing cars while trying to either kill the gang that poisoned him or find an antidote.
"I wonder if the fat guy would let me borrow that jacket?"
The movie has a completely over-the-top style, with more edits than even Michael Bay or Uwe Boll would think are sensible and many tasteless scenes. Still, I can't say I didn't enjoy it. I laughed at quite a bit of the dialogue, and there were some nice touches. I liked how they did the scene where Chevy drives his car into a mall completely matter-of-factly, with the transition to indoors only happening out of focus in the background as Chevy talks on a cell phone. I liked the negotiation scene with Chevy and gangster than happens with both men completely clothed in a pool. I liked how Google Earth was used for the scene transitions. I especially liked the scene where Chevy tries to run off an accidental adrenaline overdose he gives himself. And can anyone do a better job of walking purposefully than Jason Statham? He sometimes carries himself in a bizarre way that only makes sense if you remember he used to be a diver on the British National Team and that's how divers approach the end of the board.
Towards the end Crank bites off more than it can chew, with a very fake looking helicopter fight above Los Angeles and an attempt to be poetic that is not going to fool anyone who has watched more that five minutes of the rampant gunfire, dismemberment, drug use, exploitation of women, carjacking, public sex scenes, head wounds, vehicular crashes, or poor hygene that have come before.
Posted at 11:33 PM
Sun - July 23, 2006
Lady in the Water
M. Night Shyamalan's newest movie Lady in the Water is completely misguided. The movie looks good, thanks to cinematographer Christopher Doyle, and the acting is pretty good, especially Paul Giamatti as the apartment caretaker who find a sea nymph in a swimming pool. The movie is based around the apartment complex being the site for a conflict between the narf (not Pinky's exclamation, but the sea nymph) and a scrat (not the creature from Ice Age, but a wolf that can look like a lawn), with residents taking on roles like "the Healer," "The Guild," etc. The problem is that the myth scenario presented in the movie fails in the details and even fails to meet the minimum requirement of being a myth.
Is this another Ring movie?
The only source of information the characters have on the myth they're trying to fulfill is a Korean woman, who heard it as a bedtime story, and that doesn't make sense when you consider that words like "narf" and "scrat" aren't vaguely Korean words. The myth itself is a hodge-podge of elements that don't go really go together or explain anything, and that's why this isn't really a myth. The central reason a myth exists is to explain something, be it the origin of a family, or why geological feature is the way it is, or why evil exists. Lady in the Water's mythology doesn't explain anything. If you want to see this same story done right check out Neverwhere, the TV series (and novel) written by Neil Gaiman. The plot is exactly the same (unassuming guy finds a helpless woman who is sought after by supernatural forces) but Gaiman roots his story in a consistent and clever mythology based on London.
Posted at 10:59 PM
Wed - June 7, 2006
Nothing does more to rehab the image of a crappy old horror film than a remake. Then people will fall over themselves to praise the original as a classic film that should be left untouched those hacks in Hollywood.
The Omen (1976) was not a very good film. Gregory Peck played an American ambassador tricked into raising the Antichrist, in the personage of a kid named Damien. Peck’s character was frustratingly obtuse about everything that’s going on, and the supporting cast hammy. That the movie was any kind of success (and it was; there were three sequels and bunch of other spin-offs) is a testament to the fact that the whole idea of the Antichrist being a real person was still a novel pop culture concept at the time, and that the whole enterprise reminded people of the evil kid in The Exorcist (1974).
Marilyn Manson or that kid from the Wonder Years? Or BOTH?
There’s trouble in the Middle East and gas prices are up, so tradition demands we make more movies about the Antichrist. Along comes a new version of The Omen, starring Liev Schreiber (one of our premiere “you know, that guy who was in that movie” actors) as American ambassador/incredulous foster parent Robert Thorne. The remake uses almost the exact same script as the original, so there wasn't anything that surprised me. Some of the scares had been amped up a bit, but beyond that it's just about the same movie.
There are a couple of plusses to this version over the original. For one thing, the remake doesn't waste Gregory Peck. Secondly, most of the supporting cast is very entertaining. Mia Farrow is enjoyably creepy (but in a nice way) as the new Mrs. Baylock, and I prefer Pete Posthlewaite as recovering Satanist Father Brennan over Patrick Troughton if only because my Doctor Who fandom won't let me take Troughton seriously.
"This is Damien's mother's grave -- Oh, son of a bitch!"
The shame of the movie is that they didn't take many opportunities to improve the material. Take for example the scene where Damien visits the monkey house at the zoo and all the primates get agitated by his presence. A pretty creepy scene, but considering how often dogs are associated with the Devil in this movie wouldn't visiting the big cat house make more sense? That would be some interesting imagery, if a lion was to get all upset over Damien being too close.
One thing I guess they did change, as far as I can remember, is the role of the Catholic Church. In the original movie, I think the only priests we ever saw were actively involved in getting Damien into Thorne's family, even if Brennan repented. Still, the general impression given was that it was the Catholic Church in general that was behind the Antichrist. Take that, DaVinci Code! The remake softens that a bit by including a short scene of a Power Point presentation being given to the Pope to establish that the Church isn't invloved, though it's still not explained why the Catholic Church doesn't do anything active against Damien.
Posted at 09:18 PM
Mon - May 22, 2006
The DaVinci Code
The DaVinci Code is basically that scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) where Indy is looking for the tomb in the library in Venice, but stretched out to more two hours and without the promise of great boat chase afterwards. The characters run around solving codes that lead them to more codes, and so on, for two and a half hours.
I'm going to assume that the turgid pace of the film is mostly because it is an overly faithful adaptation of Dan Brown's gazillion-selling book, much as I found the first two Harry Potter movies tough going. If you're going to make a movie, you should make a movie, not just reproduce what was written on the page.
"At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we will have our revenge!"
There are some things that I feel may have made more sense if you don't have to see them acted out. The big one in The DaVinci Code is the event that kicks off the movie. The director of the Louvre is shot in the gut by an albino monk assassin (if only I had a quarter for every one of those!), and as he dies the man manages to write a number of obscure clues with complicated anagrams in invisible ink on various walls, hide an important artifact, and strip and position his own body to be found by the police. If he had enough time to do that, why didn't he, oh, I dunno, GET TO A HOSPITAL?
Tom Hanks plays Robert Langdon, apparently a rock star in the world of symbolic interpretation. The local police, represented by Jean Reno, suspects Langdon of killing the Louvre director even though Langdon has a airtight alibi. Langdon hooks up with a French police cryptologist (may sound obscure, but they're thick on the ground over there) to follow the clues the director left.
"I used to such a serious actor. Now I can't make a movie that makes less than $200 million domestic if my life depended on it."
Things lead to a secret society and specialist on the Holy Grail named Sir Leigh Teabring. Teabring is played Sir Ian McKellan, and the movie only really comes alive when he's onscreen. McKellan at least realizes that when your character is spouting lots of boring history you need to be as theatrical as possible. Hanks, meanwhile, appears asleep in some scenes.
Could people really take this movie seriously as a history lesson? The theories Brown proposed in his book are awful, and they don't seem to have been corrected here. This movie would have us believe "the pagans" all subscribed to one belief system that treated males and female deities equally, that Constantine converted to Christianity because he thought it was backing the right horse in "religious wars," and that the Council of Nicea voted on what books to put in the Bible. Events that took place years apart are lumped together to make them sound more conspiratorial, and connections are made that don't exist. Take the destruction of the Templar order by King Philip of France. A real event to be sure, but the movie implies that this was done with the blessing of the then current Pope, Clement, and that the date has been preserved in superstition as Friday the 13th. A quick check of any good history book will show you that Clement dissolved the Templars nearly a decade after Philip's persecutions, and not so coincidentally only after the Papacy moved to France and he didn't really have a choice. And the superstition about Friday the 13th? Unknown before 1914.
Posted at 09:52 AM
Thu - May 11, 2006
X-Men: The Last Stand on Fox Tonight
A couple of hours ago Fox showed an extended trailer for X-Men: The Last Stand. Later tonight it should be up here, I'm not sure why. Despite the widespread internet fanboy wisdom that that the movie will have to suck because Brett Ratner is directing it, all the trailers have looked good, and so did this one. I've long maintained that with a movie like X-Men: The Last Stand the only thing that really matters is the script. The actors know the characters already and the world has been established, so long as the script provides an interesting story and good character moments all the director has to do is handle the technical stuff. Practically any competent director would do.
"Oh, excuse me. Had the burritos at lunch."
The plot appears to be an amalgam of the mutant cure from Joss Whedon's first Astonishing X-Men storyline, the Dark Phoenix saga from the Claremont/Byrne era from Uncanny X-Men, and perhaps some of Grant Morrison's Planet X arc from New X-Men. Even in the short seven minute clip we saw tonight there were some good ideas. I really liked how the X-Man shown thinking about taking the cure was Rogue, as opposed to Beast from the comic book. Rogue's inability to touch anyone makes for a much more believable reason to want to be cured, and I'll take it as a good sign that the scriptwriters have improved on Joss Whedon's ideas. The dialogue featured was all pretty good, especially a speech Magneto gives to convert mutants over to his way of thinking. I'm a little less clear on how they'll incorporate Dark Phoenix into a 2-hour movie.
If you eat Boo Berry for enough years it's just the milk that changes color...
Kelsey Grammar is playing Beast, and he looks really good. He does look stiff and uncomfortable in the scene where we first meet him (included in the footage aired tonight), but it becomes obvious this is because he's wearing a business suit as a requirement for his job with government. Nice touch.
I like that Kitty Pryde will be a much more prominent character, probably as a romantic rival to Rogue. Quick, let's start a pool on what codename they'll give her for the movie! I call Shadowcat. I'm amused that it looks like Kitty gets to take on Juggernaut by herself, and wins.
"Do you know what happens to a Oscar Winner who makes Catwoman? The same thing that happens to anybody else."
The one weak link in the movie looks to be, again, for the third freakin' time, Hale Berry. I like Berry in other movies, but she really needs to stay away from comic book characters. I'm not even sure why the producers even kept her on. Do they really think that she brings that much box office with her, even after Catwoman (2004)?
Posted at 12:03 AM
Sun - April 23, 2006
I'm a big fan of French pulp-director Christophe Gans, or at least as big a fan as you really can be when that director has only made one good film. Besides his art-house hit Brotherhood of the Wolf (2001), Gans also contributed the best segment to the anthology Necronomicon (1994) and made a live-action version of Crying Freeman (1995) which to this day has yet to be released in the U.S., and that's about it. But I still like him. That brings us to his new movie, the video game adaptation Silent Hill.
Right bewteen Mute Mountain and Noiseless Knoll.
I've often seen Silent Hill cited as a example of a video game with a good story, but from what I can tell that story boils down to "There's this cult, see..." and any amount of strange stuff is explained away. The movie pretty much has the same plot, though towards the end there is a aborted attempt to explain things in more detail. Years ago Rose (Radha Mitchell) adopted Sharon (Jodell Ferland). Now Sharon is sleepwalking and rambling about Silent Hill, so Sharon decides to take her to the abandoned mining town. Right off the bat the movie makes it tough for us to empathize with Rose because we aren't given any idea of why she thinks going to ghost town would help her daughter be better adjusted. She also makes the trip without telling her husband, who for some reason is played by Sean Bean.
Rose has a traffic accident right outside Silent Hill and is rendered unconscious. When she wakes up Sharon is gone and everything is shrouded in fog and ash. Rose wanders around town, sometimes joined by a cop from the outside, looking for Sharon. Every now and then a siren sounds and the entire town literally goes to hell. Strange creatures come out, all the facades rot away, and sky goes dark. Then, for reasons that really ought to have been explained, things go back. Also, a siren going off before the monsters come out tends to cut down on the scare factor a bit.
This ad was not one of the more effective ones for Axe Body Spray.
In the end we find out that the whole thing has to do with a puritanical cult that tried to sacrifice Sharon's doppelganger (Sharon is an avatar of this other woman, or maybe her daughter, or something) to cleanse the town of sin, but the rites went wrong and the girl lived. The girl has been torturing the townspeople, who hide in a church, ever since. That's who and why, but where's the how? How does this one girl have the power to turn an entire town into hell? I have no idea. Also, why does hell have so many indoor chain link fences?
The movie is a victory for Gans as a visualist, even if the story and characters are off-putting. The creatures and the environments are suitably hellish. Gans often seems to be trying to get his Argento on, particularly quoting one of Dario's favorite images several times: The crying girl sitting facing a wall. Too bad Gans also picked up Argento's infuriating disdain for satisfying narrative.
Posted at 10:43 PM
Mon - April 10, 2006
You remember in Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie (1996) when Tom Servo cracked “I’m going to ram my ovipositor down your throat and lay my eggs in your chest, but I’m not an alien!”? It wouldn’t be that hard to imagine that that line inspired James Gunn to write Slither. Gunn, who wrote two of my favorite horror movies of recent years (Dawn of the Dead  and Scooby Doo ), makes his directing debut with this rather obvious homage to the gore fests of the 1980s. The story is so very standard (alien slugs attack a small and turn the residents into zombies), but at least Gunn knows that you have to have some halfway interesting characters in a horror movie to make it worthwhile. The movie has the requisite gore, but I think it would have benefited from having some deeper theme, like most of its models did. Maybe something about the sanctity of marriage or small town life not being as simple as it appears, something like that.
"I aim to misbehave... and get cancelled in nine episodes."
Posted at 10:06 PM
Ice Age: The Meltdown
So I wonder if the people who worked on the Disney movie Dinosaur (2000) look at Ice Age: The Meltdown and go “D’oh!” Dinosaur was enough of a bomb that Disney shuttered their CGI facility, while Ice Age had one of the best openings of any animated film – and they’re both nearly the same story. Prehistoric animals flee a disaster at one end of their valley and as an organized herd try to reach a goal at the other end, while pursued by two predators. Oh and in both there’s a large animal raised to adulthood by little furry animals. Even one of the most powerful scenes in Dinosaur, when Alidar suddenly runs into a herd of his own kind he had no reason to believe even existed, is mirroed in Ice Age.
"C'mon, global warming!"
What Dinosaur didn’t have was Scrat, that little rodent thing that constantly hurts itself in single-minded pursuit of acorns. Now that’s some funny stuff, and it’s enough to allow me to forgive Ice Age: The Meltdown when it wallows in way too much pathos towards the end.
Posted at 09:41 PM
Tue - April 4, 2006
Basic Instinct 2: Risk Addiction
This weekend I had a very clear indicator of how out of favor the “erotic thriller” is when I walked into a theater to see Basic Instinct 2 and I was the youngest person there, by a good 25 years. Sure, I live in St. Pete, a city that until recently had a reputation as God’s waiting room. But Basic Instinct 2? What were these people expecting to see? I watch bad movies for fun – what’s their excuse?
Mrs. Tramell, you're trying to seduce me.
As it turns out the elderly audience didn’t have much to be offended by in Basic Instinct 2. In this sequel novelist Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone) is involved in a car crash where her passenger, a famous football player, is killed. It turns out, however, the man was actually dead before the accident, poisoned. Catherine is arrested and to secure bail she undergoes psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Glass (David Morrissey). Needless to say Glass becomes obsessed with Catherine because otherwise it wouldn’t be much of a movie. People close to Glass also start dying. (Sadly, no one is attacked by a komodo dragon.) Is it Catherine, or someone else framing Catherine?
What amazed me most about Basic Instinct 2 was how utterly mild it was. There are essentially two very brief sex scenes and a few graphic descriptions of sex, but as a follow-up to a movie that really was shocking (if also unrealistic and awful) it’s disappointing. Basic Instinct (1992) at least embraced its b-movieness is a Snakes on a Plane kind of way. In this movie the plot pretty much wanders around aimless for the first hour and ten minutes before someone realized “crap, something has to happen!” and the movie wraps up with Glass doing some things that defy logic, and there’s a final twist that has no bite because it has to be a fiction told by one character.
"I'm the sexiest woman on the AARP's mailing list."
Perhaps part of the reason Basic Instict 2 is so lifeless is that a bunch of the “good stuff” got cut out. A “promo reel” was leaked to the web a couple months back, and it contained many shots that weren’t in the movie at all, including several that appear to be from sex scenes that were cut completely from the movie. These include Glass and Tramell having sex in his office, Glass having sex with another woman (I think) in a phone booth, and a ménage a trios with Glass, Tramell, and another woman. That last one isn’t just a gratuitous sex scene. I mean, it’s gratuitous, but it’s also a plot point because that other woman is alluded to in the movie’s dialogue but never actually seen.
Posted at 10:33 PM
Sun - March 26, 2006
The opening of Ultraviolet shows a futuristic airplane dropping what appear to be large bowling balls into the windows of a giant skyscraper. After rolling into a giant lab the balls open up to reveal techno-ninjas, who engage in a swordfight with the lab’s security.
As armor goes her outfit isn't the best, but it does distract the enemy.
As openings go it isn’t two bad, with some striking imagery, even if it’s obvious that the movie doesn’t have a large special effects budget, To a certain extent Ultraviolet resembles a HK sci-fi action movie, and indeed the movie, while written and directed by Kurt Wimmer, was shot with a mostly Hong Kong crew.
The plot follows Violet, a young woman who was turned into a “Hemophage” (that’s Latin for “We’re trying to be cool by not using the word ‘vampire’ in our vampire movie”) by a disease. There’s a war between the vampires and the religious/medical establishment that runs things, and Violet come into possession of a secret government weapon – and it’s a child! Dum dum dum!
There’s a scene where Violet is running from the bad guys on a motorcycle, and she uses some sort of gadget to change the direction of her own gravity, so she can drive up walls at a 90 degree angle to everyone else. That’s a pretty good metaphor for the whole movie. Nearly all the technologic gadgets or action scenes are like something from The Matrix (1999), but at just enough of an angle to be different. The motorcycle scene I mentioned has Violet chased by helicopters with chainguns, which should be instantly recognizable. “Flatspace technology” allows Violet to grab guns out of thin air, similar to the virtual arsenal scenes in The Matrix. It really goes on and on.
The movie completely fails to make Violet an interesting character. One thing The Matrix did right was starting off with a hero who was a regular guy. Ultraviolet starts with Violet already some sort of hardened freedom fighter, so the apparent change of heart required for her to protect the kid comes out of nowhere.
Posted at 10:38 PM
Sun - January 29, 2006
Underworld: Evolution (or as it's called in Kansas, Underworld: Intelligent Design) is a sequel to Underworld. I know I've seen Underworld at least twice, but I still felt lost in Evolution. About all I remember about the first film is that there were vampires fighting werewolves, there was sort of secret history between the two races, there was a hybrid, and Kate Beckinsale was poured into a leather outfit. Only one of those things was really added any entertainment value to the film; care to guess which one?
Maud'Dib! Maud'Dib! Maud'Dib! Maud'Dib!
Kate and the leather outfit are back in Evolution, but beyond that I didn't have the slightest idea what was happening. "Death-dealer" Selene (Beckinale) is hanging out with the hybrid Michael while vampire lord Markus escapes from hibernation. Markus, it turns out, is the first vampire, and his brother William was the first werewolf. Now Markus wants to release William from imprisonment, and only Selene knows where William is.
This movie also included a preview of a new Tim Allen comedy.
Despite dialogue about how Michael is the first hybrid, there's also dialogue about Markus being a hybrid too, but of what is never explained. I'm also not sure why Markus wants to release William, and further confusion is added by the inclusion of Alexander, Markus and William's immortal father, but apparently neither vampire or werewolf. WTF? Oh, and the actor they got to play Alexander looks as much like Derek Jacobi as is humanly possible.
Beyond the muddled plot there are some nice visuals and a couple of clever action scenes. I just wish the script had been better focused. And they really need to get rid of Michael. That's one toy train that's on a really small track.
Wait... that was Derek Jacobi? Oh Derek, did you really need that boat payment so badly?
Posted at 11:38 PM
Sun - January 15, 2006
Uwe Boll is back with yet another movie based on a marginally popular video game. Yay!
Rayne (Kristanna Loken) is a half-human, half-vampire held captive by a carnival. She escapes and takes to killing vampires, while her father, the vampire lord Kagan (Ben Kingsley -- yes, that Ben Kingsley), sends thralls out to find her. It seems that she’s fated to find some artifacts that can make a vampire immune to the traditional vampire weaknesses. Rayne falls in with the anti-vampire society Brimstone, where her help is embraced by leader Vladamir (Michael Masden) and her ass is embraced by hunky fighter Sebastian (Matt Davis). Michelle Rodriguez is also in the movie, as a Brimstone agent who doesn’t like Rayne for no discernable reason.
The hardest working crucifix in show business.
This is by far Uwe Boll’s best film. That’s not to say it’s a good movie, but unlike his two previous videogame-derived epics, House of the Dead (2003) and Alone in the Dark (2005) there’s an obvious reason to watch this movie: Kristanna Loken in slinky outfits. Credit where credit is due, the movie does deliver on that. It’s also obligatory that I mention that Loken does get briefly toppless, but it’s in a bit that’s the very definition of a gratuitous sex scene, and Boll shoots and edits it incompetently.
How is Kristanna Loken as an actress? How do I put this so as not to sound like a complete sexist pig?
Ah, screw it. She’s pretty when she’s quiet.
On the other hand, she chose the right vehicle for her major speaking role debut. She doesn't look that bad compared to all the established actors who completely embarrass themselves. Chief among them would be Masden and Meatloaf Aday, who don't even seem to be trying. Other people, like Kingsley and Rodriguez are merely horribly miscast.
"And in this book are the names of all those who have sullied their Oscars. I'll just sign right here, under Mira Sorvino and Halle Berry."
Besides the dodgy acting, there are other diversions for Bollimaniacs. Boll seems to have recently read the chapter in Filmmaking for Dummies about flashbacks, so we get a bunch of them, even tough most of them don't add any information to what we know. The rules regarding vampires are nicely incoherent, with standing water now being able to hurt vampires, and Rayne gains an immunity to it by assimilating a mystical eye. What does an eye have to do with water? Also, at the climax Kagan falls for what is literally the oldest trick in the book.
"Hitching my wagon to Uwe Boll will get my career back on track!"
The sad thing is, to paraphrase Richard Nixon, we may not have Uwe Boll to kick around anymore. After the pathetic performance of Alone in the Dark in American cinemas, Boll teamed with Billy Zane (yes, that Billy Zane -- he has an awful cameo in the movie too) to form a new independent distribution company called Film Romar. This company distributed BloodRayne, and originally announced they had got it into 1900+ theaters. However on opening day only 985 theaters reported that they had the movie. The next day Variety.com reported that Romar had sent out prints to theaters that didn't request them. In the end the movie made an estimated $1.2 million its first weekend, though a week later Film Romar still hasn't reported actual figures. That's a pathetic total, and probably didn't cover making and shipping prints, no matter how many there were really. The gist is that Boll has made himself radioactive in the U.S. market. I find is extremely unlikely his next film will get any kind of distribution over here.
Posted at 10:38 PM
Thu - January 12, 2006
Heath Ledger -- The Final Truth
Because of the raging controversy over whether or not Heath Ledger can act, I present the following statement, as spoken by Dr. Jyotika Virmani (seen here putting her doctorate in oceanography to good use):
"Of course Heath Ledger can act. You saw Ten Things I Hate About You. He's so cute!"
That should settle the issue once and for all.
Posted at 10:30 PM