Greetings.
More news is flooding in on Disney's fourth installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean series.
The series, based off the Disney theme park ride of the same name, started back in 2003 and starred Johnny Depp as the roguish Captain Jack Sparrow, Orlando Bloom as the heroic Will Turner, Kiera Knightley as beautiful Elizabeth Swann, and Geoffrey Rush as the villainous Captain Barbossa. These first three films were directed by Gore Verbinski and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer. Together they grossed a total revenue of over 2.5 billion dollars.
As many of you know, it does not matter what critics think of a franchise, it's what the fans think. And the Pirates of the Caribbean movies are generally rated as follows: Curse of the Black Pearl: "Awesome!" Dead Man's Chest: "Ehh, okay" (Although it was my personal favorite). At World's End: "Sucks!!!" It's true, the franchise lost a bit of its flair with the last instalment. So I'm wondering, how are they planning to keep it afloat with a fourth movie??
Disney acquired the film rights to Tim Powers' bestselling book, On Stranger Tides, sometimes in 2009. The book, focusing on the quest for the Fountain of Youth, will be the main reference for the development of the fourth movie, also called On Stranger Tides. Johnny Depp has already been paid 55 million to reprise his role as Captain Sparrow, and Geoffrey Rush has signed on as well. Unfortunately, Gore Verbinski will not be returning as director, having fallen out with Disney last year. New cast members include Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane, with the latter slated to play the notorious pirate, Blackbeard. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley will not be returning (which is not news), and now Mackenzie Crook, who played the wooden-eyed pirate hand Ragetti, has stated that he will not be returning. This strikes me as a bit of a surprise. Does this mean that the rest of Jack's crew will not be returning as well? Half the fun of the first three films was Jack and Barbossa's recurring crew members. I'm sorry, but I just don't think that the fourth film will be the same without Gibbs, Pintel, Ragetti, Cotton and Marty. They're just too much fun.
Now, the Fountain of Youth storyline. Could be interesting, we'd be able to Jack Sparrow try and cheat death once again, and I am looking forward to seeing him share the screen with Barbossa again as well. The complex relationship between the two of them is always fun to watch. But as far as story goes? I'm skeptical as to the success of a fourth movie when the third one wasn't all that great. And all the actors dropping out? I don't know, call me crazy, but Disney may be going for their first ever cash grab! I know, I know, crazy...
I'll see it when it comes out in 2011, but honestly, I'm not expecting much as far as story goes.
- The BlueScreener
Monday, March 1, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Sherlock Holmes Flick
Greetings.
Last month I had the opportunity to see Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, on the big screen. This film is the first cinematic adaptation of 'Holmes' in 77 years, and I must say, they did an amazing job.
(Warning: the following contains plot spoilers). The film opens with the titular character and eccentric detective Sherlock Holmes and his long suffering assistant Dr. John Watson tracking down a new villain, black magician Lord Blackwood (played by Mark Strong). The duo, aided by Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marson), arrest Lord Blackwood before he can sacrifice a young woman in an occultic ritual, apparently to bolster his powers. Blackwood is sentenced to hang by the neck, which he does, barely 20 minutes into the film. But, lo and behold! Lord Blackwood rises from the grave, cheating death and now more powerful than ever! Watson is skeptical; he checked Blackwood's pulse himself and declared him dead. Holmes calmly gathers clues and deduces within his mind facts that we do not discover until the final 10 minutes. On top of it all, Holmes' old flame, the only woman to ever outwit him (twice), Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) reenters his life with an agenda of her own.
The acting was superb. Robert Downey Jr. captured Holmes' character and quirks perfectly, and acted out his eccentric persona with ensuing hilarity. Jude Law perfectly fitted Watson's trademark image seemlessly, sporting the traditional huge mutton chops. I don't even like Jude Law and I found his acting incredible!
The plot was well-rounded, and left you guessing until the very end. (Major spoiler): I loved how Sherlock, upon cornering Blackwood at the film's climax, revealed the secret to his 'magic' through pure logic and observation. The acting, as I've stated, was incredible, with the exception I think of Rachel McAdams, who's performance almost felt forced in comparison to Robert Downey Jr.'s. The soundtrack was different, but still well done, something of a combination of a high strung guitar and a ukulele (My mother later told me she hated it).
One thing that bothered me about the film was the preceding hype that Holmes and Watson are gay. Why does society needlessly conclude that because two men are close, they must be gay? Watson's not gay, he's getting married. And Holmes may share a house with Watson, but that was common for the time period. There is nothing even remotely homosexual about these characters. What vexes me the most is that the publishers have threatened to pull the rights to the sequel because Robert Downey Jr. hinted at the undertones in the two character's relationship. Please.
In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes was a great film. It held me until the end and is great to view twice in one week (which I did). It ranked number 2 in my Christmas films list, falling only behind James Cameron's Pocahontas, er, I mean, Avatar. I anticipate having the special edition on my shelf, and I look forward to the sequel (Can you say, Moriarty, people??).
- The BlueScreener
Last month I had the opportunity to see Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, on the big screen. This film is the first cinematic adaptation of 'Holmes' in 77 years, and I must say, they did an amazing job.
(Warning: the following contains plot spoilers). The film opens with the titular character and eccentric detective Sherlock Holmes and his long suffering assistant Dr. John Watson tracking down a new villain, black magician Lord Blackwood (played by Mark Strong). The duo, aided by Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marson), arrest Lord Blackwood before he can sacrifice a young woman in an occultic ritual, apparently to bolster his powers. Blackwood is sentenced to hang by the neck, which he does, barely 20 minutes into the film. But, lo and behold! Lord Blackwood rises from the grave, cheating death and now more powerful than ever! Watson is skeptical; he checked Blackwood's pulse himself and declared him dead. Holmes calmly gathers clues and deduces within his mind facts that we do not discover until the final 10 minutes. On top of it all, Holmes' old flame, the only woman to ever outwit him (twice), Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) reenters his life with an agenda of her own.
The acting was superb. Robert Downey Jr. captured Holmes' character and quirks perfectly, and acted out his eccentric persona with ensuing hilarity. Jude Law perfectly fitted Watson's trademark image seemlessly, sporting the traditional huge mutton chops. I don't even like Jude Law and I found his acting incredible!
The plot was well-rounded, and left you guessing until the very end. (Major spoiler): I loved how Sherlock, upon cornering Blackwood at the film's climax, revealed the secret to his 'magic' through pure logic and observation. The acting, as I've stated, was incredible, with the exception I think of Rachel McAdams, who's performance almost felt forced in comparison to Robert Downey Jr.'s. The soundtrack was different, but still well done, something of a combination of a high strung guitar and a ukulele (My mother later told me she hated it).
One thing that bothered me about the film was the preceding hype that Holmes and Watson are gay. Why does society needlessly conclude that because two men are close, they must be gay? Watson's not gay, he's getting married. And Holmes may share a house with Watson, but that was common for the time period. There is nothing even remotely homosexual about these characters. What vexes me the most is that the publishers have threatened to pull the rights to the sequel because Robert Downey Jr. hinted at the undertones in the two character's relationship. Please.
In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes was a great film. It held me until the end and is great to view twice in one week (which I did). It ranked number 2 in my Christmas films list, falling only behind James Cameron's Pocahontas, er, I mean, Avatar. I anticipate having the special edition on my shelf, and I look forward to the sequel (Can you say, Moriarty, people??).
- The BlueScreener
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Spider Man 4 now Spider Man 1.2??
Greetings.
Okay, so it's been a little while since my introductory post. That's the life of a college student for you. But, I'm here now, and will take this time to comment on Sony Pictures rather shocking decision to reboot the Sam Raimi Spider Man film series.
Announced on January 11th, 2010, the new Spider Man films are taking Peter Parker back to high school and showing us the origin (again) of his spectacular spidey-sense. The reboot birthed out of a disagreement over the script of the now scrapped Spider Man 4, and will not feature Tobey Maguire or Kirsten Dunst in their respective roles as Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Director Sam Raimi has also got the boot.
Now, I'm not gonna lie, I never really cared for these movies, with the exception of maybe the first. Tobey Maguire is too awkward an actor to play the web-slinging Spider Man, and Kirsten Dunst had more screaming than actual dialogue, especially in the second film. The romantic subplot in Spider Man 2 was murder, and only held together by Mary Jane's excessive dippiness. And for some reason, the soundtrack just flat bugged me. But still, a reboot this soon? Spider Man 3 was only released two and a half years ago, people. You're not pleasing the audience, you're just killing the franchise. Yeah, Hulk (2003) was rebooted and the Fantastic 4 series has one in the works, but those movies sucked and quite frankly needed a good reboot (2008's The Incredible Hulk wasn't all that bad, either). The Spider Man movies weren't my favorite, but they were financially successful and critically praised (overlooking the third installment, here). People are not going to accept a new Spider Man film series when the first one is so new. And I cringe to think that actors like Willam Defoe (Norman Osborne), James Franco (Harry Osborne), Rosemary Harris (Aunt May), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), who acted their parts superbly, will probably not be reprising their roles.
On the other hand, a new series means that there is definitely room for improvement withing the franchise. I would like to see a better actor play Peter (not Robert Pattison, dear Lord, NO!) and to have more focus on his sarcastic, witty side. I would also like to have the first movie focus on Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane (any true Spider Man fan knows that she is Parker's true love. If you don't believe me, read Marvel's "House of M"). I personally hated the way Gwen was portrayed in Spider Man 3. She is pivotal to Spider Man's origin and deserves to be put before Mary Jane. This new series is also a great opportunity to do Venom right (especially with the spin-off only a couple years away). At first I really looking forward to see how they do these new movies, and eagerly hope that they do them right. However, my common sense (my spidey-sense, that is) then reminds me that the negatives far outweigh the positives, and a new series will more than likely just screw up the franchise even more.
I think that Sony's just looking for a cash-grab here and really has no interest in making a good series. I balk at the thought of audiences seeing the preview and going: "Huh? Didn't we just see this??" and then not go out of a lack of interest. When will you learn, comics people?? When...will...you...learn?!
- The BlueScreener.
Okay, so it's been a little while since my introductory post. That's the life of a college student for you. But, I'm here now, and will take this time to comment on Sony Pictures rather shocking decision to reboot the Sam Raimi Spider Man film series.
Announced on January 11th, 2010, the new Spider Man films are taking Peter Parker back to high school and showing us the origin (again) of his spectacular spidey-sense. The reboot birthed out of a disagreement over the script of the now scrapped Spider Man 4, and will not feature Tobey Maguire or Kirsten Dunst in their respective roles as Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson. Director Sam Raimi has also got the boot.
Now, I'm not gonna lie, I never really cared for these movies, with the exception of maybe the first. Tobey Maguire is too awkward an actor to play the web-slinging Spider Man, and Kirsten Dunst had more screaming than actual dialogue, especially in the second film. The romantic subplot in Spider Man 2 was murder, and only held together by Mary Jane's excessive dippiness. And for some reason, the soundtrack just flat bugged me. But still, a reboot this soon? Spider Man 3 was only released two and a half years ago, people. You're not pleasing the audience, you're just killing the franchise. Yeah, Hulk (2003) was rebooted and the Fantastic 4 series has one in the works, but those movies sucked and quite frankly needed a good reboot (2008's The Incredible Hulk wasn't all that bad, either). The Spider Man movies weren't my favorite, but they were financially successful and critically praised (overlooking the third installment, here). People are not going to accept a new Spider Man film series when the first one is so new. And I cringe to think that actors like Willam Defoe (Norman Osborne), James Franco (Harry Osborne), Rosemary Harris (Aunt May), and J. K. Simmons (J. Jonah Jameson), who acted their parts superbly, will probably not be reprising their roles.
On the other hand, a new series means that there is definitely room for improvement withing the franchise. I would like to see a better actor play Peter (not Robert Pattison, dear Lord, NO!) and to have more focus on his sarcastic, witty side. I would also like to have the first movie focus on Gwen Stacy rather than Mary Jane (any true Spider Man fan knows that she is Parker's true love. If you don't believe me, read Marvel's "House of M"). I personally hated the way Gwen was portrayed in Spider Man 3. She is pivotal to Spider Man's origin and deserves to be put before Mary Jane. This new series is also a great opportunity to do Venom right (especially with the spin-off only a couple years away). At first I really looking forward to see how they do these new movies, and eagerly hope that they do them right. However, my common sense (my spidey-sense, that is) then reminds me that the negatives far outweigh the positives, and a new series will more than likely just screw up the franchise even more.
I think that Sony's just looking for a cash-grab here and really has no interest in making a good series. I balk at the thought of audiences seeing the preview and going: "Huh? Didn't we just see this??" and then not go out of a lack of interest. When will you learn, comics people?? When...will...you...learn?!
- The BlueScreener.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
I'm Bahk
Greetings.
Well, fellow students, the first semester gave way to a great Christmas holiday, which has now come and past, leaving us in the throws of a winter semester. This blog, originally meant as homework for my Writing for the Media class, has fulfilled its purpose and left me with a final grade of 90%. But must the blog die?
With no academic purpose, I am now able to direct my blog in my own direction. It will now serve as a review for movies and television shows, give comic book commentaries, and critique the realms of fantasy and sci-fi as a whole.
In the past, I have written about certain films and comic books. Some of these early posts will be revisited, but many will tackle new concepts, such as the comparison between Pocahontas and Avatar, whether a Spider Man film reboot is a good idea, what the X-Men trilogy would have been like if I wrote it, and the future of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (just to name a few).
Being a devout Christian, I will try my hardest to uphold the blog with all integrity and portray an attitude and demeanor fitting of a Godly person. I am not perfect, but I do try to make my Faith known to others, especially when it comes to my love of media.
Assuming anyone still reads this thing, I look forward to posting and having my posts read and pondered. Until then, good luck and God bless.
- The BlueScreener
Well, fellow students, the first semester gave way to a great Christmas holiday, which has now come and past, leaving us in the throws of a winter semester. This blog, originally meant as homework for my Writing for the Media class, has fulfilled its purpose and left me with a final grade of 90%. But must the blog die?
With no academic purpose, I am now able to direct my blog in my own direction. It will now serve as a review for movies and television shows, give comic book commentaries, and critique the realms of fantasy and sci-fi as a whole.
In the past, I have written about certain films and comic books. Some of these early posts will be revisited, but many will tackle new concepts, such as the comparison between Pocahontas and Avatar, whether a Spider Man film reboot is a good idea, what the X-Men trilogy would have been like if I wrote it, and the future of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (just to name a few).
Being a devout Christian, I will try my hardest to uphold the blog with all integrity and portray an attitude and demeanor fitting of a Godly person. I am not perfect, but I do try to make my Faith known to others, especially when it comes to my love of media.
Assuming anyone still reads this thing, I look forward to posting and having my posts read and pondered. Until then, good luck and God bless.
- The BlueScreener
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
New Moon? Try, FULL Moon!
Greetings.
Tonight I was able to view the trailer for next February's The Wolfman in its entirety.
As the title suggests, the movie is about a man turned werewolf. It is a remake of the 1941 classic horror film of the same name, and is directed by Joe Johnston (Jurassic Park III, Hidalgo) and stars Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving and Art Malik.
I am personally pumped for the film. Of all the legendary horror monsters, the werewolf appeals to me the most. I find myself drawn to films portraying the creator. My favorite Harry Potter movie to date is The Prisoner of Azkaban namely for its werewolf subplot.
I have high hopes for the movie. Joe Johnston has some moderate directing credits to his name, but was involved with the classic Star Wars trilogy as the effects illustrator and designer.
On a side note, he is set to direct The First Avenger: Captain America for a May, 2011 release.
I am looking forward to the movie and its depiction of the legendary creature. Honestly, I really want to see how the true werewolf kicks the poop out of the pansie werewolves from New Moon. They give lycanthropes everywhere a bad, bad name.
-The BlueScreener
Tonight I was able to view the trailer for next February's The Wolfman in its entirety.
As the title suggests, the movie is about a man turned werewolf. It is a remake of the 1941 classic horror film of the same name, and is directed by Joe Johnston (Jurassic Park III, Hidalgo) and stars Benicio del Toro, Anthony Hopkins, Emily Blunt, Hugo Weaving and Art Malik.
I am personally pumped for the film. Of all the legendary horror monsters, the werewolf appeals to me the most. I find myself drawn to films portraying the creator. My favorite Harry Potter movie to date is The Prisoner of Azkaban namely for its werewolf subplot.
I have high hopes for the movie. Joe Johnston has some moderate directing credits to his name, but was involved with the classic Star Wars trilogy as the effects illustrator and designer.
On a side note, he is set to direct The First Avenger: Captain America for a May, 2011 release.
I am looking forward to the movie and its depiction of the legendary creature. Honestly, I really want to see how the true werewolf kicks the poop out of the pansie werewolves from New Moon. They give lycanthropes everywhere a bad, bad name.
-The BlueScreener
Monday, November 30, 2009
Onion Tales
Nation's Fast Food Patrons No Longer Trusted To Dispense Own Ketchup
Ketchup is not, as many seem to believe, an unlimited commodity.
WASHINGTON—In an effort to cut condiment expenses and address the gluttony, waste, and utter lack of self-restraint exhibited by Americans, officials from the fast food industry announced Monday a new policy prohibiting all customers from dispensing their own ketchup.
"We thought our patrons were responsible enough to handle a self-service ketchup pump," said McDonald's CEO James A. Skinner, who claimed that fast food industry leaders were partially to blame for overestimating the maturity of the American public. "However, after watching the way you disgusting people behave when entrusted with a little independence, it's clear that we made a terrible mistake."
"Unlimited access to ketchup is a privilege," Skinner continued, "not a right."
According to representatives from the nation's six largest fast food chains, Americans use more than $18 million worth of ketchup per year, with nearly $7 million of the tomato-based condiment ending up smeared on the backs of chairs, on nearby tables, or in the hair of small children, and in some cases simply spilt in large, repulsive puddles on the floor.
In all, some 220 factors were cited by the American Fast Food Association in their decision to remove the self-service pumps. Among them, the spectacular failure on the part of all patrons to recognize their own limits, and the tendency, among many men and women, to just squirt out the free condiment as if their lives depended on it.
From now on, those seeking extra ketchup will be required to submit a non-stained written application.
"We tried to treat our customers like adults, and they took advantage of our generosity," said Burger King CEO John W. Chidsey, who was visibly upset after hearing that Americans use on average 14 ounces of ketchup per fast food meal. "What's wrong with you people? Were you scared it was going to run out or something?"
"Look, it's not even about the ketchup, okay?" Swette added. "It's about setting some boundaries for once."
Beginning Nov. 12, all participating fast food restaurants will begin serving a maximum of two ketchup packets with any hamburger-based meal. If a patron desires additional ketchup, he or she will have to fill out a special three-page Ketchup Request Form, which must then be presented to a manager on duty for evaluation.
In addition to specifying the reason for their request, customers will have to present fast food officials with two forms of valid ID, their social security number, and a signature from a third-party witness who can attest to there being enough remaining ketchup-free food to necessitate an additional packet. Only when all conditions are met will a patron receive a condiment voucher.
Patrons requesting barbecue sauce to dip their fries in will be escorted from the premises immediately.
"Our scientists don't spend countless hours manufacturing the food we serve just to have it dunked and drowned in obscene amounts of ketchup," said J. David Karam, president of Wendy's International. "Can customers even taste the dipropyl ketone or amyl acetate in our food anymore? It makes me sick."
Reaction to the new condiment policy has been overwhelmingly negative thus far, with some patrons claiming they would sooner eat lunch at home than frequent a fast food establishment that imposes limits on their ketchup consumption.
"This is outrageous," said Tennessee resident Sheila Hodge, a longtime fast food consumer. "If I want to gorge myself on so much ketchup that I need to vomit, then that should be my God-given right. This is McDonald's we're talking about. Half the reason I come here in the first place is so I can behave like a total animal."
At press time, the Arby's chain was continuing to let customers freely operate their "horsey sauce" dispenser, as nobody in America has touched that {crap} in years. 
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
A&E Presents: James, An Autobiographical Angle
James Hilton, aged 19, was born in Wetaskiwin Alberta on January 4th, 1990. He resided in the small city until he was 5, when his family of four, himself, parents, and newborn younger brother, immigrated to Northern Alberta. They would stay their for 12 years before God called them back to Wetaskiwin.
James Hilton exhibited signs of artistic talent even at a young age. He picked up his first crayola marker when he was six months old. By the time he was five, he was creating stories on paper featuring crude but still distinguishable stick figures in the likeness of Looney Tunes characters.
Throughout his life, he cultivated his talent, learning the laws and physics of cartooning. His years of practicing resulted in his ability to draw his own characters, further enhancing the creativeness of his stories. His objective was to perfect the design of his art to use them in what he considered the height of story telling: cinema.
For most of his life, James always knew he wanted to be in cinema, whether it be film or television. Before he was about 13, he was confident that his future lay in cartoon writing the like of Garfield and Calvin and Hobbes. When his stories, usually science fiction in nature and composed of highly complex plots, exceeding the creative capacity of a four-panel comic strip, James realized that he needed to be in cinema.
He continued to harness his artistic talent to be used for his stories, which sometimes took years of working to shape. His sole goal in everything was to tell stories to the world, and he wanted to use the characters he created to do that.
He is currently enrolled at Providence College in Otterburne, Manitoba, finally pursuing his dream through a major in Communications and Media.
James Hilton exhibited signs of artistic talent even at a young age. He picked up his first crayola marker when he was six months old. By the time he was five, he was creating stories on paper featuring crude but still distinguishable stick figures in the likeness of Looney Tunes characters.
Throughout his life, he cultivated his talent, learning the laws and physics of cartooning. His years of practicing resulted in his ability to draw his own characters, further enhancing the creativeness of his stories. His objective was to perfect the design of his art to use them in what he considered the height of story telling: cinema.
For most of his life, James always knew he wanted to be in cinema, whether it be film or television. Before he was about 13, he was confident that his future lay in cartoon writing the like of Garfield and Calvin and Hobbes. When his stories, usually science fiction in nature and composed of highly complex plots, exceeding the creative capacity of a four-panel comic strip, James realized that he needed to be in cinema.
He continued to harness his artistic talent to be used for his stories, which sometimes took years of working to shape. His sole goal in everything was to tell stories to the world, and he wanted to use the characters he created to do that.
He is currently enrolled at Providence College in Otterburne, Manitoba, finally pursuing his dream through a major in Communications and Media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
