Pop Goes the Corn!

It seems as if i don't have any luck lately with movies. You might remember what I wrote about last week. Well, similar case, slightly more serious, obviously more expensive, but down at the end: Another crappy movie.

I saw Jumper, its and action thriller based on a boy who was "abandoned" by his mother at the age of five and was raised by his drunk father. Usual heroe story: Skinny underdog who suddenly discovers he has great power, but with the difference that here, the protagonist is some sort of anti-heroe, who just benefits at will from the use of his power (Dumb and Dummer, anybody?), and has a very keen taste for suits, kudos there ma' boy!

Other than that, Hayden Christensen reminds me why those other little films he stared weren't THAT good. I thought it was a George Lucas factor, but boy was I wrong. He is slighty more humane, but his lines are spoken in a lame, dead and boring tone, which im starting to think is his normal tone of voice, not a request by Mr. Lucas.

Story is kinda sloppy too, special FX are a rip of from X2 and there is one line form Spider Man (Think "With great power..." speech form uncle Ben), which makes me wonder if the authors of this story had any other interest than to: 1) Rip off good movies; 2) Rip off good lines; 3) Bore us to death with their rip offs.

Diane Lane was seen like 3 times in the whole film for less than 2 minutes, none of which made any more sense than the other, save that to make a point that mother and son are the probervial enemies (Alas "The Patriot", XMen with Charles and Magnus, etc.). Whats worse? There's bound to be a sequel, as the ending was the usual "No answers, More questions" Trilogy crap, and we all know how Hollywood love$ tho$e film$ (I, however, wouldn't bet on this little jumper).

I'll be kind as I think what the movie lacked was a better revision of the script, something that would be shorter and more eye-catching, as the general idea is good (as it is not original) but it could have been.

2 platains, for effort.

I haven't seen this movie but I really want to; the most impressive about is the very low budget, only $30,000.00 dollars ( I couldn't believe it) but they did good with that small quantitative because the movie looks with a higher budget; In the early 1970s when everyone in America was worrying about what was going on in Vietnam, the United States Army was secretly developing a way to reanimate the dead. Their intention was to have the dead fight instead of the living, but the experiments were shut down when the reanimated corpses were unable to control their hunger for human flesh. Thirty years later the army decides to reopen the project. Grover City, because of its remote location, would be the home of their main testing facilities. Without warning, the Grover City experiments go horribly wrong and the reanimated corpses go on a rampage, eating everyone in sight. With the town overtaken by zombies, a group of High School seniors take it upon themselves to fight back and find a cure for the disease.

Here is the gory and creepy trailer. Check how well done it is with the mini budget:

"You can only imagine the truth", what great phrase this is, and it certainly plays an interesting role in the film. This little card under the wrist of director Joe Wright is a compelling drama set up just before and during WWII, somewhere in Britain. It tells the story of sisters Cecilia and Brione, and little Brione's quest to become a part of her older sisters world, to no avail. An event occurs where Brione has decisive power on things to come, and here my friend is where things turn off for the worst, casting both sisters into paralell exile in a world torn appart by the anger of war.

James McAvoy, that actor we've seen before in Wimbledon, The Chronicles of Narnia (as the annoying Faun) and in that underlooked performance as Forest Whitakers opposite in The Last King of Scotland, didn't really get a chance to shine in this film, although his few appearances where in fact very strong, specially towards the end ("Right now I'm beign torn appart by the idea of breaking your neck right here or throwing you down the stairs..."). Kiera Knightley really has a "good"performance" here as she stars most of the film. That woman playing her sister, I really didn't feel her, as though she was actually reading the lines, more than performing them.

In technical aspects, the film is very clean. The musical score really earned every bit of the Oscar, as it was marvelous and to the point, present in almost every scene and added accents to the film that made the film just great (such as the detail of the typewriter going over the score, thats genious!). The cinamatography was excelent and the portrayal of turn of the century britain was really in the nail.

In general, I did like the plot twist at the end, however, I don't see this film as winning the Academy Award. Although it did play a front runner, as it ran (and won) the Golden Globe for Best Film, Drama. Lets wait until I see No Country, and I will fill you in for this one. Overall, i'll drop in 4 platains for this marvel of a film.

Ehl.

Lately, a significant number of movies produced by Hollywood are remakes of an old or an international movie. Even European, Latin or Asian movies that have not been release yet in their respective countries are in this process; Some say that "they have ran out of idea", It is like to try to rewrite "Don Quijote Man of The Mancha" or repaint "The Mona Lisa".

First of all, I don't have nothing against remakes, because thanks to them I have gotten aware about good movies that I didn't even know about their existence or maybe I knew about them but I was not interested till the upcoming new version is announced. Once I heard a remake is coming I try to put my hands on it before the release of the new one.

Some movies deserve to be renew because are too old for this technological generation and there's not need to others but in Hollywood $$$ talks. But what is exactly a "movie remake"? It is simply a new version of a movie that was successful in the past but no always is like this. In order to be consider a remake the movie has to keep the same plot, give credits to the author and keep the tone of the preview film. A remake is to reinvent (beside the monetary interest) not a copy. In 1998 Gus Van San tried to copy shot by shot Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece "Psycho" and the result was a messy colored copy coal.

The quality of a remake vary in action, plot, blood, acting, direction, ect. There are good (Ocean Eleven, True Lies, The Italian Job, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Dawn of the Dead, The Hills have Eyes, The Ring and others), regular (The Eye, Diaboliques, The Grudge, I Am Legend ) , bad (One Missed Call, Pulse, Black Christmas, The Fog), or a mess (Psycho, The Truth About Charlie, Cast Away, Invisible, Wicked Man ).

A remake can even win a Oscar. In 2007 the Oscar For Best Motion Picture went to "The Departed" a remake of a film from Hong Kong "Infernal Affairs" (2002). I finish with a list of remakes that are suppose to have theatrical release during 2008 without mentioning those that will be Direct to DVD:

• Further Adventures In Babysitting (2008)
• Bangkok Dangerous (2008)
• Barbarella (2008)
• Bad Seed (2008)
• Creature from the Black Lagoon (2008)
• Friday 13th (2008)
• Funny Games (2008)
• The Dam Busters (2008)
• Hellraiser (2008)
• The Incredible Shrinking man (2008)
• Piranha (2008) ( Remake of a Remake)
• Prom Night (2008)
• Revenge of the Nerds (2008)
• Shutter (2008)