Posts tonen met het label mark wahlberg. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label mark wahlberg. Alle posts tonen
vrijdag 22 november 2013
Today's Double News: studio decisions regarding superheroes and a teddy bear
Another double bill of news today, because I didn't post one item yesterday for lack of time, again (insert shamefaced emoticon):
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151830/ted_2_in_gevaar_vanwege_rechtenconflict
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151866/mogelijke_titels_batman_vs_superman_gelekt
In both cases we get a fascinating glimpse of how a studio plans its strategy for much anticipated blockbuster movies it has high hopes for (and in both cases I daresay the audience does too, though in one case more deservedly so than in the other). So Universal doesn't own the rights to Ted 2, apparently. No surprise really if you look at the Ted credits (on IMDb for example) and see that 'Universal presents' it only, which strongly hints at this major merely distributing (and marketing) the film which by itself was produced by a smaller company. This sort of thing happens all the time in the studio system. Big studios these days are mostly engaged in distribution and promotion of other studios' films rather than paying for production themselves. Not to say that distribution and promotion doesn't carry a risk financially too, considering how much money is being spend in those two departments today. If a movie flops, everyone loses money. Ted certainly didn't flop though, not by a longshot! It was quite surprisingly a runaway hit, earning over ten times as much as it cost (or at least, as much as its production cost: who's to say how much money was involved creating audience awareness?). Ted 2 will likely fare about as well if not better. So even though a final deal has not yet been struck between Universal and MRC, I would venture a guess the current release date won't change at all and the production is not in any jeopardy, despite what my overly sensational headline seemed to indicate (hey, I need attention just like every other human being!). In fact, Universal may have been attempting to force the issue by stating a release date in advance, so MRC can't allow itelf to lose face by not living up to this deadline (kind of a mean tactic, but nothing studios haven't done before). And why wouldn't the smaller company want to live up to it, considering how much money Ted 2 is likely to earn it and Uni both? Like any Hollywood studio would ever say no to the prospect of more precious shiny money!
As for Supes and Bats, it was known Batman vs. Superman wasn't a definitive title, just a temporary one. A temporary one that caught on though, as both fans and movie websites across the globe have embraced it vigorously. Nevertheless, considering this film is a sequel to Man of Steel (which also serves as a new set-up for the Caped Crusader and a possible new sub-franchise of his own), it's logical studio Warner Bros. would want to take advantage of the new and popular Man of Steel brand name, as opposed to the maybe too classic Superman name, by emphasizing the connection between that film and this one via the title. Of course, this title must also allow for room for the Batman character (whatever his exact moniker this time around), but if you don't use the term 'Superman' (as Man of Steel tried so hard to avoid for over two hours), why would you use 'Batman'? So you come up with more subtle titles, like this cascade of concocted credits illustrates, after they'd been exposed by alleged "secret" domain name registering. Like there's any room for secrets on the Internet... I wouldn't be surprised if Warner allowed these names to leak on purpose just to continue fueling the movie's hype, a process which will not conclude right up till the actual release of the piece. I'm not particularly fond of any of these proposed titles, I must admit. There's just something catchy and iconic about the title of 'Batman vs. Superman'. It says it all, doesn't it? Or are we being deceived, and will this movie not feature the two of them battling it out at all? Is it possible there's more truth to these Justice League rumours that are flying around the web than we thought there was, and other tentpole DC characters, like Wonder Woman and Green Lantern, will also be of major importance? So many questions, but for now all of them are still being outstaged by the biggest one of them all: Batffleck, yay or nay?
donderdag 3 oktober 2013
Today's Mini-Review: 2 Guns
2
Guns: ****/*****, or 7/10
Now
this is a buddy movie if ever I saw one. The one buddy is Denzel
Washington starring as an undercover DEA-agent aiming to bring down a
drug lord, the other is Mark Wahlberg starring as an equally
undercover Navy intel officer attempting to secure the same kingpin's
cash to fund covert Naval operations. Naturally, neither is aware of
the other's actual identity – if you think different government
situations could adequately work together for a change, think again!
– and they know they'll have to kill their partner somewhere down
the road, but not before said road screws them both and they can't
trust their own employers no more, which leads them to forge an
uneasy alliance to get through their common misery alive. It's
basically the 'why so serious' version of The Departed, except
here the moles have to dig themselves out together. Of course
2 Guns never reaches that film's level of quality, but it
surpasses most other recent action movies, mostly thanks to excellent
chemistry between Washington and Wahlberg (giving the latter another
chance to prove he can actually act, which is still a matter of
debate in some circles). The successful and catchy interplay between
Washington's relaxed and calculating thinking man and Wahlberg's
charming but obnoxiously loudmouth man of action is the result of an admittedly fairly solid script containing plenty of witticisms, absurd but
surprising narrative situations and, as expected, a decent amount of
gunfights. The movie betrays its comic book roots in an overall
over-the-top attitude, with delightfully ridiculous action scenes,
the use of politically incorrect stereotyping here and there (the
vile and racist border patrol cops for one) and an excessively eerie
and villainous bad guy with a routine for sadistic interrogation
techniques (Bill Paxton!). Coupled with an abundance of snappy
dialogue throughout, as well as a fairly intelligent, though at times
a little convoluted, plot for this type of high octane action flick,
it makes 2 Guns one of the more pleasant and enjoyable of this
year's thrill rides. Ideologically speaking, the movie suggests
there's nobody you can trust but your gun. You certainly can't trust
government institutions, since they use you and abuse you at their
convenience (which makes it all the more ironic I saw this film on
the same day US government services throughout the country shut down
due to the inability of American politicians to agree on budget
measures, leaving the States in chaos). The DEA is corrupt, the Navy
is a tool that only cares about its own prestige and turns a blind
eye to injustice amongst its ranks for the greater good, and the CIA
is nothing but an out of control private army for its top brass who
utilize it to get filthy rich by smuggling drugs into the country in
cahoots with the Mexican drug lords that only serve as their stooges.
Heck, the Mexican drug lord in this movie (an unconvincingly Hispanic
but convincingly scary Edward James 'Adama' Olmos) has more scruples
and honourable sensibilities than any of the goverment's top dogs!
When it comes down to mutual self-preservation you can rely on your
best buddy, but once the dust has cleared you can only trust him as
far as you can spit, as illustrated by the protagonists' continuing
eagerness to plant a bullet into each other even up till the end of
the film. It's a dog-eat-dog world, 2 Guns states, but with a
good gun you can make sure you're the canine doing the eating, while
getting away with a load of cash while you're at it.
donderdag 5 september 2013
Today's News: Transformers go extinct
This was found on MovieScene yesterday thanks to myself:
http://www.moviescene.nl/p/149814/transformers_4_krijgt_titel
Transformers: Age of Extinction it is. Derivative title to say the least. Recently we were treated to the revelation that the next Avengers flick will be called Avengers: Age of Ultron. And what's that one about? A robot threatening mankind with extinction! Other sub-titles Paramount reportedly considered for Transformers 4 were Apocalypse, Future Cast and Last Stand. Also all less than original. Remember Resident Evil: Apocalypse, X-Men: Days of Future Past and X-Men: The Last Stand? Paramount must be thinking it can shave a few bucks off this hugely expensive project by copying better movies' titles.
Oh well, there's robots in the shape of dinosaurs in this one - as there are in Power Rangers, by the way, so also not a wholly novel concept - so I may be forgiving for once. Not that I care much about the Transformers franchise under Michael Bay's continuous supervision. I've sat through three shitty movies about alien robots inexplicably changing into Earthly vehicles, so I'm not interested in a fourth. But 'Dinobots' sounds simply so mesozoically cheesy, this film might entice even me. And if it ends up a dud, there's fortunately plenty of other dinosaur related movies in store. Walking with Dinosaurs 3D this year, Pixar's The Good Dinosaur the next, and hopefully (finally!) Jurassic Park IV in 2015. It seems the dinosaurs are back to stay. Again.
zondag 30 september 2012
A guy, his girl and his teddy bear
Ted: ****/*****, or 7/10
These
last few years, bromance is the new key word in comedy movies.
The number of movies focusing on a bunch of guys, the closest of
friends, getting in and eventually out of trouble (often female
related) by being there for one another to the point they seem to
love each other more than they do their girlfriends, has been
steadily on the rise with no apparent end in sight. Of course, the
routine of the subgenre, all too firmly established by now, begs for
some variation. Enter Seth MacFarlane, the man behind the popular
animated sitcom Family Guy, who came up with an idea as simple
as it is effective, while appearing utterly ridiculous to the
uninitiated at first: replace one of the dudes by a living teddy bear
while otherwise staying true to the bromance formula. The
result, as both written and directed by MacFarlane, is a delightful
comedy film, that explores the boundaries of bromance by
wedging a fairly random element between the love affair of an
everyday guy and the girl he loves, an obstacle as male as the other
guys usually intervening in the natural progression of romance as
portrayed in this particular subgenre, but certainly not as human.
Despite Ted's abundance of effectively funny moments, it must
be said Macfarlane does stick to the bromance theme a little
too much, too often ignoring the fact we're watching a live stuffed
animal parading on the screen, instead concentrating on the way he
both hinders and helps the romance between his best buddy and his
girlfriend as if he were just a regular guy.
Applying
Patrick Stewart's ever reliable voice talent to the role of the
story's narrator, Ted opens on the unavoidable fantasy note
necessary to explain how a three ft. teddy bear came to life in the
first place. We're introduced to the protagonist, John Bennett, in
his past as the least popular kid on the block, a boy so generally
scorned other kids won't even bother to beat him up. To remedy his
isolation a little bit, John's parents give him a big plush teddy
bear for Christmas which instantly becomes his best buddy in the
whole world. Wishing the bear were alive, he quickly finds this
desire becomes reality, courtesy of a shooting star passing over at
the exact moment he made the wish. Despite his parents' initial
objections – they're freaked out by this talking toy, as any adult
would be – John can keep Ted and they grow up together. Of course a
live teddy bear is as extraordinary a thing in this movie's universe
as it would be in our own, and when discovered by the media, Ted
swiftly becomes a celebrity, only to fall into general acceptance and
eventual obscurity as his novelty wears off and people grow tired of
him. It doesn't matter for Ted, since he'll always have John, his
best friend for life; and as John grows up into a likeable, nerdy
adult (now played by Mark Wahlberg), Ted grows up with him into an
equally nerdy, grumpy know-it-all bear with a rather vulgar attitude.
These boys may have grown up together, but both of them have remained
immature, despite the fact John at least got himself a job and a
girlfriend, Lori (the ever charming and witty Mila Kunis).
Warning!
Spoilers! As is the standard problem the plot of most typical
bromance films offers, the main question for John in Ted
is how he can get serious in his relationship with Lori while still
being able to maintain his less than serious, and indeed kind of
childish, relationship with his oldest pal, if this is even possible
at all. As is the case with most regular guys, John picks romantic
love and the future it offers over brotherly love and staying stuck
in watching (bad) movies and smoking pot for ever: and so John
finally decides to move on with Lori, promising her to start acting
more responsibly and stop living the hedonistic life with his bear,
after he has helped Ted start a life of his own, living at a place of
his own and getting a job of his own, much to Ted's chagrin. If the
character of Ted wasn't a stuffed toy, there would be little
originality to this film's story. However, he is, which makes the
gags involving him applying for a workplace and hooking up with one
of his new colleagues all the more hilarious. Finally moving out of
John's place makes him less a guy and more a toy, underscoring the
silliness of having a teddy bear look for a job, hosting drunken
parties and abusing illicit substances, to great effect, resulting in
a string of memorable scenes that are sure to get those mouth muscles
moving in uproarious laughter, as is supposed to be MacFarlane's
forte.
Unlike
the official poster of the movie – which features John and Ted
using the urinals, the latter holding a beer bottle – would have us
believe, Ted isn't driven solely by toilet humour,
illustrating definite heart and soul in its characters, human or
otherwise. On the other hand, it certainly isn't afraid to embrace it
either, walking an ever fine line between hilarious, sexually charged
witticisms and cheap, cringe worthy poop jokes: the film contains
both, but luckily the former prevails over the latter. Nevertheless,
such trash talk has become as much a staple of comedy over the last
few years as the other comedic element driving the humour in Ted,
which is the constant referring to celebrities or movies in an often
less than respectful tone. As is the case with most of MacFarlane's
work, Ted is laced with popcultural citations, varying from
the compulsory references to Star Wars to making fun of celebs
a lot of spectators will have a hard time remembering (I of course
know who Tom Skerritt is, but do you?). Quoted most often is Flash
Gordon (1980), a personal cult favorite of John's, and by
default, Ted's. Flash Gordon star Sam Jones gets to play
himself as a worn out movie star that has fallen into utter obscurity
(which isn't far from the truth), idolized by the pair of them, and
all too eager to get drunk and do a little too much drugs with them
(like I said, bromance), with dire consequences for John's
relationship with Lori, making her break up with him. This of course
also results into a conflict between Ted and John, which successively
ends up in an stupendously funny fight scene between the two of them.
However, when Ted afterwards gets kidnapped by a mentally troubled
man (the wonderful, underrated Giovanni Ribisi adding yet another
well performed but disturbing character to his diverse repertoire)
with a creepy fat kid – one of the few cases in the plot where
Ted's status as a living toy is of paramount importance instead of
negligible – John and Lori must reconcile to get their friend back,
at which point the movie adds some uncomfortable action scenes to the
overall piece, largely in detriment to the sense of comedy which
dominated the film up until this point. At least it's filmed in a
visually slick and fairly suspenseful fashion, keeping our mind off
the sudden lack of humour for a good fifteen minutes.
When it
comes to visuals though, Ted rules his movie. Being the product of
computer animation via motion capture and voice artistry, both done
by MacFarlane himself, the teddy bear looks and sounds as real as the
plot claims him to be. Though maybe not so intricate as Gollum or
King Kong, Ted is a rather impressive piece of CGI, at all times
making the viewer forget he's watching a bunch of pixels and feel
he's a real person when interacting with genuine actors. Given the
scale issues involved, that is quite an accomplishment for a director
who is unfamiliar with techniques and technology like this, but
obviously not with animation itself. It also helps MacFarlane has
assembled a fine troupe of actors to help him convince the audience.
Mark Wahlberg, who's often less than compelling in his performances,
does a surprisingly good job as a childish, nerdy guy even though he
does not look like one (which is a refreshing image to say the
least), visibly enjoying anything MacFarlane throws at him, including
the fight scene with the plush toy that ends with a television
crushing his genitals. As his opposite, Mila Kunis equally delivers
in her role of the beautiful and sensible girl who is truly in love
with John but who would desperately like to see him get rid of Ted,
without hurting him of course, so they can finally get serious for
real. MacFarlane's own performance as Ted completes the trio driving
this picture, and it's safe to say it's all for the best he took the
responsibility of breathing life into his own creation, despite also
carrying the burden of writing, producing and directing the film,
since few other actors would have understood Ted like he does,
successfully making the teddy bear both endearing and worth the
audience investing in him as a character, despite his often raunchy
and rude behavior.
However
accomplished a comedian and performance artist he may be, MacFarlane
proves he's less talented when it comes to the fantastic parts of the
movie. It isn't until the end of the movie, as Ted is accidentally
torn in half by his kidnapper, at which point Lori saves his
existence by wishing he was alive again, that we truly start to
question the logistics of the fantasy part of the plot. The film goes
out of its way to state how special a little boy's wish, made at
exactly the right moment in time, can be, but in the end it appears
everybody can make a teddy bear come alive when coincidence takes
over (it's a little too convenient from the audience's perspective to
attribute the circumstances to fate alone). It makes you wonder why
Ted is the only living toy around in MacFarlane's world, since the
desire to make toys come alive has tormented children for centuries.
Though in the end it doesn't truly matter how Ted came to be what he
is, MacFarlane's haphazard writing in this regard only hurts the
plot's credibility. It might have been preferable if MacFarlane
ignored the exact how-and-why of Ted's existence altogether, even
though that too might have raised uncomfortable questions in the
audience.
Overall,
as a comedy Ted is largely successful, despite the fact its
most stand-out feature – Ted himself- is not the driving force
behind the film's plot. While Ted is naturally a key component, it's
still all about John, and the story revolves around his attempt of
balancing his life with Ted and his love for Lori equally. Therefore,
Ted is less about a live teddy bear trying to cope with the
real world and more about a guy trying to make room for the love of
his life while still aiming to keep in touch with his best friend as
much as he would like to. In this regard, bromance wins over
“bearmance”, though the audience would have loved to see more of
Ted's life on his own and his status as a washed-up celebrity which
in many respects deliver the most moments of hilarity. Maybe the
story would have been better off if the roles were reversed and Ted
was the protagonist instead of John, realizing you can't stay
immature together for ever and at one point, even as a living toy,
you just have to move on with the woman you love and loosen your
relationship with your best buddy a bit. Considering Ted's
happy ending (mostly for John and Lori) leaves ample room for Ted's
character to be further developed on his own, it's not unlikely we'll
be seeing more of him in the near future, also taking into account
Ted is doing huge at the box office, mostly because of the
lack of other appealing movies available for viewing in theaters at
the moment. 2012 witnessed a great movie summer, with the promise of
an equally great finale in its last few months, but the period
in-between is plagued by a shortage of films appealing to a wide
demographic, except for this one; it will come as no surprise Ted
2 is already a work in progress, and hopefully a sequel will give
Ted his due: after all, despite the charms of this introductory
piece, it's not truly about the teddy bear, though we obviously like
to see him the most. Maybe we can trade in Mark Wahlberg for Sam
Jones altogether for the next film? After all, you can't keep true
bromance down.
And
watch the trailer here:
maandag 21 mei 2012
Date Night
Rating:
***/*****, or 6/10
Adequate
feel-good comedy about a bored married couple (Tina Fey and Steve
Carell) who try to do something else for a change and go to an
expensive fancy restaurant where they pretend, because the place is
totally filled up, they're another couple that reserved a place (but
didn't show up), which leads to a severe case of mistaken identity as
they soon find themselves on the run from shady characters. This
basically is a supposedly funny variation on Hitchcock's classic
thriller North by Northwest, except the level of humor never
rises above average, despite decent performances by the leading
couple who at least show convincing chemistry in their roles as the
protagonist pair who are confronted with car chases, break-ins and
silly strip routines as they try to return to their not-so-bad status
quo. Also includes an ever shirtless Mark Wahlberg as an ex-spy good
samaritan and William Fichtner as a corrupt, sexually obsessed
government official. Director Shawn Levy, from both Night at the
Museum movies and The
Pink Panther (remake) fame, adds yet another fairly entertaining
but quickly forgotten flick to his repertoire.
Starring:
Tina Fey, Steve Carell, Mark Wahlberg
Directed
by Shawn Levy
USA: 20th
Century-Fox, 2010
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)








