|
Trying something new today. Since I've thus far mostly got a few smaller unrelated bits to get to, I'm logging them all into one update for space purposes. (I'm going to need the room to deal with the "Kill Bill" and "Punisher" related musings sure to pop up starting tommorow.) Titles in caps for seperate sections:
"GODZILLA" RETURNS
A hugely important event to the history of Monster Movies will occur on May 7th. No, I don't mean the official "rebirth" of the Universal Horros in Stephen Sommers' "Van Helsing." (Though that DOES look pretty cool thus far, dunnit?) I'm talking about the first ever legitimate U.S. stateside release of the uncut, unedited, un-dubbed original Japanese version of "Godzilla: King of The Monsters."
The original 1954 "Godzilla" was a bleak but deadly-serious anti-nuclear parable from the one country that knows more than anyone about the devastation of Atomic Weaponry. The film, of course, concerns an irradiated dinosaur that rampages through Tokyo. In it's original vision, the film framed the epic carnage as a decidedly un-subtle analogy for the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The "point" was not lost on Japanese citizens of the time, who made the film a hit, and the great Akira Kurosawa subsequently declared it to be "one of the most important Japanese films ever made."
It was a big enough hit to cross to the U.S., but to avoid the public outcry over a film so blatantly anti-nuclear (and, it could be argued, anti-American by proxy) the distributors cut out the more somber, symbolic moments and inserted new scenes of actor Raymond Burr as an American reporter who witnesses the Big G's attack (relegating the tragic love-triangle of the "real" leads of the original film to the narrative margins.)
The May 7th releases is the first EVER screening of this seminal genre classic. "Film Threat" online has a lil' writeup on the event:
http://www.filmthreat.com/Reviews.asp?Id=5997
Meh. When DID "Film Threat's" guys get so darn snarky about these things? The writer is entitled to his opinion, of course, butfrom where I'm standing he couldn't have missed the monumentally important POINT of this colossal Film Geek Event by miles. Nice to see the online press taking belated notice, in any case.
"FLASH GORDON" LIVES!
Admit it: 1 in 3 of you who just read that are now humming "Queen" songs. Good for you :)
The New Age of Geek Cinema rolls on, as yet another languishing-in-development fan-favorite project suddenly gets a greenlight and a fast-track. Oh, but this has NOTHING to do with comic-adaptations taking over the boxoffice and "Lord of the Rings" taking over this years Oscars and the Geek Community being the new must-please audience in the industry. You're right, I'm just an optimistic conspiracy theorist about the whole "New Age of Geek Cinema" thing. Geez, WHERE did I come up with THAT, eh? :)
Ahem. So, anyway, IGN Filmforce reports that Stephen Sommers, late of "The Mummy" and "Van Helsing" is allegedly tapped to produced another big-screen version of "Flash Gordon." Two words for Universal on this: Nicely done.
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/506/506851p1.html?fromint=1
This has been a rumor for awhile, and since Sommers' agents at William Morris won't confirm it as far as I'm concerned it still IS a rumor, the notion that Universal is casting their nets at high-profile talent like Sommers ("Van Helsing" is tipped to be a HUGE winner for the studio come May) means that they are VERY hot to get this made. Thats good news for fans of kicky scifi/fantasy epics.
It doesn't take an industry-insider to tell you what's behind this: The seismic-shift that's taken place in Hollywood following the "Lord of the Rings" earthquake has every studio looking to get their own franchise-ready Geek-appeal sf/f flicks made in a BIG way.
Currently, in the world as it now stands, properly-budgeted, respectful cinematic versions of "John Carter," "Flash Gordon" and "Chronicles of Narnia" are all set up at major studios as a direct result of "LOTR's" proving it can be done. Peter Jackson, to borrow a phrase, you bow to no one.
MEOW, ME UGH!
News for Geeks can't be ALL rosy, of course. Despite what must be a deluge of prayers by film fans the world over to all gods, demigods and deities both major and minor, Warner Bros. is STILL moving ahead with Halle Berry's "Catwoman," aka WB's bid to unseat it's own "Batmanb & Robin" as the single worst comic book adaptation ever made.
Superherohype.com offers links to a pair of unofficial posters for the ticking bomb, made up of already-released promotional material. Click at your own risk, and try to let the knowledge that Christopher Nolan's all-signs-point-to-great "Batman Begins" will be out within a year suppress your understandable urge to end it all looking at these:
http://www.superherohype.com/catwoman/index.php?id=1201
STAR WARS DVD PETITION & A PLEA TO THE FANDOM
Just about every Film Geek worth his salt has already seen or heard of this by now, but just because there can never be too many signatures on this thing I encourage everyone visiting here to read and (if you agree) sign this now-infamous petition to George Lucas asking him, in the name of the preservation of our shared Film Heritage, to release on DVD the original, uncut, unedited "Star Wars" series.
http://www.originaltrilogy.com/
Background: At the end of the Summer, Lucasfilm will release the first three "Star Wars" films in a DVD collection. HOWEVER, the films released though advertised simply as "Star Wars" will NOT be the films as they original existed; they will be the heavily-altered "Special Editions" released in the late-1990s. Despite an unprecedented outcry from fans, Lucas has refused to ever allow the REAL "Star Wars" to ever be seen again.
As if that weren't bad enough, he has recently made action to stop the exhibition of theatrical prints of the original-version films and it is heavily rumored that the films will be altered FURTHER for the DVD release (to make them "coincide" further with the newer "Prequel Trilogy.")
My take on this? The cause, however noble and commendable, is pretty futile. Lucas has, I think, made up his mind on this one. He doesn't like the original films, feels the Special Editions are the "real" versions now, and he's holding all the cards. Reason to despair? Absoloutely. New Age of Geek Cinema this may be, but the atmosphere of new joy is ever-tinged by the sad knowledge that, as the Geekdom rises to prominence one of it's progenitors has turned against it.
From the worrisome debacle of the "Special Editions" to the outright disaster of the Prequel Trilogy thus far, (2 stinkers down and 1 to go,) watching George Lucas' mad, sadistic dismantling of all the good that may have been left in "Star Wars" is akin to watching one's girlfriend being savagely beaten by her father: For close to nine years now, the Movie Geek Community has had to sit by and watch as what was once the lynchpin franchise of Cinematic Geekdom is bludgeoned to death by it's once-mighty creator.
I have no desire to own the Special Editions on DVD. I have no desire to see the proposed cover box, which falsely claims to hold "Star Wars" instead of "A Pale Shadow of Star Wars," blight my DVD shelf.
So I'm not buying them. Seriously.
The reason that the studios felt they were able to ignore the Geekdom as a demographic worth listening to for so long was entirely based on the assumption that we'll "buy anything." That our curiosity even about BAD projects that pique our interest means that they're in no danger of losing ticket business in the Geek market. For the most part, it's true. Part of being a Film Geek is being a SERIOUS film watcher, and a serious film watcher doesn't form opinions until he/she SEES the film. And since Hollywood gets paid no matter if you hate or love the film you saw, well... you know the rest.
VERY rarely can bad word of mouth send the studios a message about a bad film that was a hit: It happened most notably with the American "Godzilla" remake in 1998. Primarily, the chances for statement-making by film lovers are limited to the economic variety. This is a chance for me to make mine, and I'm making it. I paid to see your Special Editions once, Mr. Lucas, and I've no desire to ever pay for them again. I'll buy my ticket to stand in the funeral-like atmosphere of the line to see Episode III, but after that I am done. No more "Star Wars" DVD until the REAL DEAL is available for sale.
Who's with me?
Isaac Assimov loathed the concept of the "killer robot" dominating science fiction. In his books, he created the idea of "3 Laws of Robotics" in order to ensure HIS automatons couldn't participate in such fare. His "I, Robot" was a collection of relflective, somber tales detailing the future evolution of robots.
So, naturally, the best way to adapt it to a feature film is to make it into an action-heavy Will Smith vehicle about a future cop trying to solve the case of a murderous robot with "Rules are made to be broken!" as a tagline. Sure, I can see that. I can see that it's pretty stupid, too. We ALL could see that from the "I, Robot" teaser trailer that started running a few weeks back.
Now, here's the newer, longer trailer that confirms, I think, the fears most fans of Assimov and his style of scifi tenfold. Comingsoon.net offers the link to the quicktime version, it's the one under "Trailer." Judge for yourselves:
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/i/irobot.php
Unless there's a twist to this thats being purposefully witheld or the trailers are selling an entirely different film than was made, I'd say this is looking like about the biggest bastardization of this sort of material in memory: Will Smith shooting off puns, leaping robot action scenes and "One man saw it coming!!!" as the new tagline? Someone get me a bucket...
"The Punisher," Marvel Films' big official stab at an R-rated "hard"-action franchise based on it's character stable ("Blade," based on a franchise that came and went with the 70s, doesn't really count,) opens this weekend. It's an R-rated revenge actioner, opening against "Kill Bill: Volume 2," ANOTHER revenge actioner. This is something you don't often see in Hollywood, especially this time of year: Two films aiming roughly at the same demographic (fans of violent action films over the minimum age of 17) opening against one another.
The films are more similar than all that: Both have a substantial "geek subculture" appeal outside their primary existence as revenge flicks: "Punisher" is based on a comic book, while "Bill" is a walking homage to 1970s grindhouse genre pics. Both are also betting on a semblance of cultural pre-film knowledge to bring in the curious: "Bill" is, of course, a sequel that will answer and end last year's cliffhanger while "Punisher" is a fairly well-known Marvel mainstay. Industry business pundits have for a good while assailed the "Punisher" producers for what they see as an obviously bad business move.
I happen to think the punditry is right on this one. "Bill" is opening with tons of publicity, a groundswell of terrific reviews and the built-in appeal of a sequel who's predecessor only debuted on DVD rental Tuesday. But I also think I understand what someone at Marvel is hedging their bets on: They're gambling, I think, that "Bill's" wacky-for-wacky's sake strangeness, geek-appeal film referencing and "arty" ultra-stylism will turn off that segment of the action movie fandom that demands a certain quotient of macho-posturing and gun-worship with it's cinematic diet.
Nevermind that Marvel and director Johnathan Heinsleigh's advance word on their film has been that it's a dark and serious-minded revenge tale in line with Garth Ennis' recent run on the "Punisher" comics, the trailers and ads are selling a solid message to the YAAM (Young Angry American Male) crowd: This film will slake your hunger for the loud-sweaty-guys-crashing-into-eachother fight scenes and psuedo-erotic-photography-of-firearms-and/or-cars that you've been missing since the days of Stallone and Van Damme ended and American action films assimilated the soaring drama and intricately-constructed/physics-defying action style of Hong Kong (aka "that sissy kung-fu stuff.") That "Punisher" probably ISN'T a Z-Grade frat-boy chestbeater in the Van Damme tradition is beside the point: Marvel and Artisan want us to THINK it is.
With that on the table, here's some links to two decidedly different "Punisher" review, the first a negative from "Aint-It-Cool-News'" own Harry Knowles:
use [link=]http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=17355[/link]
Ahem. Love him or loathe him, Knowles film reviews come straight from the gut (no pun intended.) He hated the flick. A lot of the "Talkback" comments on his site are being devoted to accusing him of slanting his review negative in order to improve "Bill's" boxoffice chances, but frankly I'm not buying it this time.
In Harry's review he keeps refering to "Moriarty's review" of the film. "Moriarty" (a psuedonym) is the "other" big wheel at AICN, who last month posted what was to become the first "rave" of the film from a solid figurehead of the internet Movie Geek Community. For continuity's sake, here's his take:
There ya go.
Now, from nearly the polar opposite of AICN's neck of the Web, I turn to Jeffery Wells, a film journalist who's bi-weekly column "Hollywood Elsewhere" runs on "Moviepoopshoot.com." The link is to the whole column, but the "Punisher" review is the lead item right up top:
http://www.moviepoopshoot.com/elsewhere/index.html
Wells made a dubious "name" for himself in the Geek Community three years back when he came out early as one of the slim minority of critics who openly loathed "Lord of The Rings." When the film failed to become the for-fans-only niche peice he'd predicted and instead turned into a juggernaut with Oscar buzz, Wells turned into the patron saint of anti-LOTR scorn, heaping so much scorn and derision on the film and it's fans that he became one of the most-despised critics to the Geek Community and remained there as he railed againt the trilogy and consistently wrote in praise of ANY effort to stave off Peter Jackson and the "fanboys" from taking over the biz.
That being said, his column is usually pretty interesting if heavily slanted to the "trendy/chic" aspects of non-mainstream filmmaking for the most part. I reccomend checking it out frequently.
MY TAKE THUS FAR:
I won't be seeing "Punisher" until it debuts on Friday, but my guy tells me this is no "Bill"-killer. It's a modestly-budgeted actioner that will probably open in #2 (the top spots will be wide open with "Alamo" continue it's slide and "Passion" now removed of it's Easter Weekend boost) with a respectable take. Whether or not it has legs depends on three distinct variables: Whether the fans of the comic embrace it, whether a fresh crop of fans embrace it, and whether or not it's any damn good in the first place.
However well either ends up doing, "Punisher" AND "Bill's" competition in the R-rated revenge drama market gets stiffer the following week when the very "Punisher"-like Denzel Washington badass-bodyguard-chases-kidnapped-moppet entry "Man On Fire" debuts.
Alright, I'm not going to post EVERY review that tries to turn the "Alamo" box-office failure into a political tool, but here's one that actually makes a fair, intelligent and well-argued case for the right-wing side on this. Courtesy Don Feder and Frontpagemag.net:
http://www.frontpagemag.net/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12965
It goes without saying that I disagree with Feder's political assessment of the film (or, rather, of it's makers) but he's right that the film fails to carry any central message or "center," and that that is a BIG part of it's dramatic failings. It also shows that he's being intellectually honest in openly admitting that the John Wayne 60s version wasn't any damn good either, even as he takes the required shots at those who criticized Wayne for his politics then and now.
Frontpagemag.com is actually a pretty good source overall for intelligent, non-dogmatic journalism from the Political "Right." It's run by David Horowitz, one of the saner voices of the American conservative movement (you can see him on Dennis Miller's lackluster CNBC show off and on) who works to keep his site relatively free of the Religious Right pandering that taints most lesser right-wing sites. They have a link there to the weblog of Andrew Sullivan, who's blog I reccomend to all who are interested in culture/politics (even if they don't necessarily agree with the writer.)
Took the kid sister to this one today as a post-Easter treat. She'd read the book and wanted to see the movie, I wanted to see voluptuous Anne Hathaway running through the woods and we both agree we don't get to hang out as much as we'd like to, so it worked out all around.
Not a bad little flick at all. Not great, but decent.
It's a "Princess Bride"/"Shrek"-style sendup of fairytale conventions by pasting modern gags and sensibilities into a medieval-fantasy setting. Hathaway plays a peasant girl who's fairy godmother gave her the magic "gift" of obedience: She has to obey any command directed at her. This doesn't (really) impede her life as a free-thinker who crusades for the civil rights of oppressed elves, ogres and giants, at least until she winds up with the obligatory Wicked Stepmother and Stepsisters who use the gift to abuse and humiliate her.
Hm. So, the premise of the movie is that Anne Hathaway (tall, leggy, incredible figure, long brown hair, big anime-esque dark eyes, killer smile) is walking around obeying people's every command. I'd like to take this opportunity and thank the writers for taking the intellectual heavy-lifting out of fantasizing on this one. Much appreciated, fellas :)
She quests to find her godmother and petition the removal of the curse, unwittingly stumbling into romance with a Prince Charming who is pursued like a Tiger Beat pinup by the girls of the kingdom and a conspiracy involving the Prince's uncle (Cary Elwes in what can only be a grateful nod to his starring role in Princess Bride that perfected material like this) whom no one seems to suspect of impure motives despite the fact that he wears black cloaks, a "Ming The Merciless" beard and takes his advice from a talking snake.
Lots of FX and fairytale-isms on display here, but it's just a breezy little romantic comedy spoof at heart: It whizzes by quick, doesn't leave much impression, but makes for a lightly inoffensive good time. Hathaway, it must be said, is the real draw here. She's STUNNINGLY beautiful, and the film plays like an audition reel for what appears to be an impressive range: She gets to do fight scenes, dramatic scenes, comedy, dance and even belts out a song. (She'll next appear in the dark drama "Havoc," purported to feature, yes, a nude scene.)
If the film eventually isn't as good as either "Shrek" or "Princess Bride," (and it isn't) it's because it's a little TOO self-aware for it's own good. Aside from Hathaway's genuinely good "big" dramatic scenes, the movie doesn't know when to drop the self-effacing spoof humor and get "real." The essence of effective satire isn't in what you mock, it's in what you choose NOT to mock: Mel Brooks EVISCERATES the cliches of the Western in "Blazing Saddles," but the triumph of it's Black sheriff hero has a serious undercurrent to it that elevates the film.
Here, a HUGE chunk of the plot (and the Prince's entire character arc) hinges on the equal-rights struggle of the giants, ogres, etc., but the film doesn't want to take the time to set up the seriousness behind the gag: The spectacle of medieval-costumed Ella behaving like a modern college-aged social justice activist in fairytale land is a cute gag, but without acknowledging something bigger behind it it's just so much visual goofiness.
It's not-hardly as good as it could have been (as is, it feels HEAVILY cut for time and pacing) but it's a cute diversion and, damn, is she ever hot.
In case you haven't heard, MPAA boss Jack Valenti is stepping down. For Movie Geeks, this news has been greeted with mostly positive reaction: Film fandom has a generally sour view of the MPAA, seeing in it (not incorrectly, I think) the pure synthesis of what is wrong with American film content-control versus the more "open" censor policies in Europe and much of Asia.
Culture Warriors of the political "Right," though, are seeing this as a chance to use a brief opening as a chance to snag some upper-hand control and actually INCREASE film censorship. Think it can't happen? I direct you to the current state of Mr. Howard Stern, who has found the full-force of a right-wing controlled FCC that has used the American public's ridiculously overblown reaction to the Janet Jackson incident leveled at him with the goal of silencing him forever.
Michael Medved, the film critic most beloved by the Religious Right, here puts the far-right spin on Valenti's tenure in an April 6th Wall Street Journal editorial:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110004914
Medved here is laying out the Religious Right's "new" angle on the Culture Wars: Instead of trying to appeal to the Industry's "better angels" to stop making violent or sexually explicit films because "morals were more important than greedy profit," now they're appealing directly TO the greedy profit. The new-and-ready memo from the Fundamentalist Right to Hollywood is: "Traditionalism sells, just check out Mel Gibson's returns on that Jesus flick!"
Medved and his ilk are trying to re-write the history of modern Hollywood: In their new version of events, it wasn't the rise of television or foreign competition that lowered ticket sales, it was Hollywood's "abandonment of traditional American values" (read: "openess to new ideas as opposed to blind obedience to the will of the so-called majority") that did it. Frankly, I happen to believe that Mike is full of it on this one and, whats more, I think he KNOWS it.
Medved hinges his argument here on the concept that the MPAA ratings system that governs film content is somehow a Babylonian bastion of extreme-permissiveness. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with underground film, independent film, foreign films, etc. can tell you that that is complete and utter CRAP. Compared to what is permitted in general-release entertainment in much or Europe or what is being made on the no-holds-barred underground circuit, the restrictions of the MPAA are almost medieval in their relative puritanism. Most of you reading this are informed enough to know that.
And so is Medved.
Michael Medved is not a stupid man. In fact, he's highly intelligent and a very well-read student of the cinema. If he really thinks that the MPAA counts as an out-of-control haven for ammoral permissivity, he is either delusional or he's dishonest. I think he's being disingenuous here, propping up a basically bogus myth of a conspiratorial permissive Boogeyman because it aids the long-term goals of the political forces with whom he has long-allied himself with.
The "Hollywood and the MPAA are too liberal" routine he's revising here isn't meant to play to culture-saavy folks with an eye to all facets of film international or otherwise: This is meant to frighten the "heartland of America" crowd into fearing that their precious tykes might see something approaching kinda-sexual or kinda-violent (unless the violence is being perpetrated against Jim Caveziel in a Jesus costume, of course, THEN it's okay) and that newer, harsher leadership is needed to protect them from the Liberal Hollywood conspiracy to corrupt children's minds.
THE SAD TALE OF MICHAEL MEDVED.
Medved is the ultimate fallen angel of Movie Geekdom: He is, I believe, the most potent and sad story of a genuinely important fandom icon who has, for whatever reason, transformed himself willingly into one of the ultimate enemies of all film fandom, Geek or otherwise.
Medved and his brother first appeared on the scene as the authors of a truly wonderful book detailing the "50 Worst Movies Ever Made." In celebrating the awfulness of bad cinema, The Medveds almost single-handedly invented and codified the pop-culture concept of watching bad movies for kicks. Without this book, I believe, we would not have had Joe Bob Briggs, Mystery Science Theater 3000, etc. A HUGE and important piece of modern Movie Geekdom can trace it's philosophical origins to Medved and his book.
Then something happened.
Medved's initial book was basically free of political content. It would be the last. Medved's subsequent work in book, radio and television-based film criticism has all had a political bent: He became THE film critic of the Religious Right, and in his current incarnation he has seemingly bled himself of any ability to regard a film in terms other than political. He sees sinister messages in every film he doesn't like, and often assaults film for their message or the politics of the filmmaker rather than the craft.
He has suported film censorship and wrote a whole book, "Hollywood vs. America," of conspiracy theories about how the movie biz is trying to "destroy traditional values." In doing so, I believe, he has sold out film artists and film fandom by supporting those who would deny filmmakers the right to tell stories or show images that do not conform to the fundamentalist Religious Right view of the world.
I'm certainly not suggesting that film criticism from the political right is unwelcome, on the contrary I love to hear film reviews and opinions from ALL sides. But Medved goes the further step, allying himself with the Falwells and the Ashcrofts who seek to re-impose puritan censorship on film-as-art, and in doing so I believe that he has sold-out ALL film fans and filmmakers; left, right and in between.
And it is sad, because he WAS a good critic... and he could have been great. I feel sorry for him.
Meant to post this earlier, as I saw the trailer myself before "The Alamo." Here's a direct link to the Quicktime versions courtesy Garth at "Dark Horizons":
http://www.darkhorizons.com/news04/040410c.php
Among all the recent remakes since the late 90s, this is probably the one that has the potential to provoke reactions of shock and anger to casual film fans as opposed to only the Movie Geek community. It's a bitter pill to swallow, fellows, but it's true: When the "mass culture" hears that Godzilla or Dawn of the Dead are on the remake trail, we're the only ones crying "blasphemy;" the rest of the world's reaction is "who cares? they weren't 'good' in the first place, man!"
But if you remake a widely-known political thriller that starred Frank Sinatra, the "public" will stand up and take notice. Look for this to be a big story on a bunch of levels.
That being said, the trailer has me intrigued. Johnathan Demme is not a director to be taken lightly for the most part, and Denzel Washington is usually pretty wise about his choice of roles. The film's visual style is, at least, interesting looking. Details about the new film have been kept a close secret, even down to broad details like what the "new" storyline will be (the original involved American soldiers brainwashed into pulling the trigger as part of large-scale asassination conspiracy by communist China,) but here's what "jumps out" from the trailer about for me. I'd love to hear some comments about it from y'all visitors.
Firstly, the setting certainly looks contemporary, so one wonder what "Manchurian" will now refer to (the trailer seems to intimate that it's now the "Manchurian Corporation" behind the bad-doings. So, then, whats the angle? Who are the new bad guys? Evil corporation? Terrorism?
Secondly, all the scenes of labs and scientists... anyone else getting the vibe that this one will tip from the original's "outlandish" premise into outright science fiction? If so, am I the only one who finds that pretty potentially cool?
Thirdly, how much do y'wanna bet that as opposed to discussing the SUBSTANCE of the film, 90% of the "buzz" leading up to this will be lame non-news shouting from BOTH sides of the non-issue about the "significance" of changing the lead character's ethnicity?
one more update before bedtime:
The biggest downside to the Alamo bombing is we'll be denied an interesting culture story: Reaction by Mexicans and mexican americans to the film. Hollywood Reporter has some insight:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000484402
"Superherohype.com," a must-visit site for Movie Geeks that follows comic book properties in development, has a nifty peice up concerning the now fast-tracked "Fantastic Four" movie's casting.
http://www.superherohype.com/fantasticfour/index.php?id=1180
Okay, so it's just overheard unconfirmed gossip from a German TV broadcast, but nonetheless I'm intrigued. If you didn't click the link, the rumor concerns German muscleman/actor Rolf Moeller being a possible castee for the film.
Don't be surprised if you've never heard of Moeller. He works mainly in his native Germany and made his American debut in the short-lived "Conan the Barbarian" live-action TV series. Americans are most-likely to recognize him as Maximus' (Russel Crowe's) giant Germanic sidekick in "Gladiator" (he was the one who was in charge of testing out the fresh fighters by whacking them with a wooden sword, remember?)
Moeller is BIG, close to seven feet in height and with an imposing physique that groups his muscle-weight heavily in his shoulders, arms, chest and legs.
There's about a million reasons why this rumor is likely bupkis, but I'm intrigued either way. This is one of those good rumors that, even if it isn't true, could be an indication that someone is thinking in the right direction. As I see it, there's really only TWO major FF characters in the "must use" cast Moeller could be up for. (Assuming the casting isn't for, say, "Henchman carrying boxes #5."): Ben Grimm, aka "The Thing," (a hero) or Victor Von Doom, aka "Doctor Doom," (bad guy, duh.)
For non-fans: "Thing" is one of titular 4, "blessed" with super powers when cosmic rays pelt their space ship. While the others get outlandish powers like invisibility, stretchiness or pyrokinesis, Grimm ends up with the more conventional brute super-strength AND a permanent metamorphosis into a hulking "monster" made of orange rocks. Lucky him.
"Doctor Doom" is a gypsy-born scientific genius who becomes the megalomaniacal ruler of a third-world Eastern European dictatorship called Latveria. He hates the FF leader, Reed Richards ("Mr. Fantastic,") who he blames for a college-age lab accident that apparently scarred his face. He hides his face behind a metal mask, complimented by a metal suit and green cloak.
Moeller would be an interesting pick for either: Thing because it'd signal a possible use of practical FX as opposed to GGI to realize him, and Doom because, well, because Moeller is huge and has a thick East German accent.
This is getting interesting.
"The Alamo" was about as bad as we'd been led to believe, leading to a wretchedly dismal boxoffice return.
I predicted a few Blogs ago that certain elements in the Right Wing press would try to spin the innevitable failure into an "audience indictment of revisionist history by Liberal Hollywood."
Guess who's crystal ball was working:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37985
Worldnetdaily was where the original Freedom Alliance letter story end of this broke, and since no one else ran with it they're calling full credit now. They can have it.
In case you were wondering, "The Passion" was the #1 earner again. Man, you'd think there'd been some kind of related Holiday or something...
|
Search This Site
Syndicate this blog site
Powered by BlogEasy
Free Blog Hosting
|