Silent Bob

Yeah, I don't think they've gotten Connery to agree to the part, yet. I don't even think they've asked, yet. As for Indy's son. That'll be the most sought after part for up-and-coming actors since Anakin. If they wanted a bigger name, my suggestion would be Josh Hartnett. And speaking of movies built for sequels, what about the Alien series? I think the biggest requirement for directing an Alien sequel was that you had to promise to fuck up the last director's ending as much as possible. I mean, in Alien, she escapes the alien and heads back to earth, but in the sequel, oh no, no she doesn't, she drifts out there for 57 years instead! At the end of Aliens, she flees the planet with friends, but in Alien3 she crashes and all her friends die. Well, that sucks. And in Alien3 she kills herself to save the world, but in Alien 4, oh no, Ripley, we won't even let you do that! We're gonna clone you! I can hear Ridley Scott's exasperated sighs all the way over here.

Hey, JMT, how do you change what's underneath your avatar, anyway? Yours reminds me of grand WarCraft III memories...ah...if only I could get the game to work again...

Wasn't there a sixth Rocky movie planned, about a year ago? Or did someone finally find whatever exec was responsible for that idea and beat the hell out of him?

Hey, JMT, plug Spy Kids all you want. It's nice to see that a kids movie can have so much style, and even clever writing. I hope the sequel does the same. "How long have we been falling?" "I don't know. My watch doesn't tell time."

Heh, I loved Tower of Doom... Yeah, I agree Crusades wasn't as great as Raiders, but I thought it at least lived up to the idea, by adding Sean Connery's character. And no, sequels don't have to be as good as the originals. I have all three Die Hards in my collection, but I know the second two weren't nearly as good as the first (though the third wasn't so bad). Doesn't mean I don't enjoy watching them. But, yeah, 's not what the thread's about...

Despite getting such iconic roles as Picard and Xavier, I think it's amazing that Patrick Stewart can still get roles that are completely dissimilar (unlike, say...William Shatner, for good reason...most of the Bond actors...and can anyone watch something with Robert Patrick, without thinking of him as T-1000?). That shows what a great actor he is. I think Patrick Stewart can pull off almost any role, and if he actually wants to play Spider, then, damn, give the man the role. As for the female leads in Bats vs. Supes - I don't think Batgirl will be in it. They've specifically stated that there's no Robin, and the script seems to focus on Batman's loner mentality. Placing Batgirl in the story could serve well to play against that, but it could just as easily get in the way. They said the story also features a lot of villains, so, who knows, maybe we'll get to see the first big-screen live-action appearence of Harley (the only other female villain besides her and Catwoman I can think of is Poison Ivy, and I doubt they'd want to remind anyone of Batman & Robin, if they could help it).

But, there's also some bad news in the comic book movie world. And that involves the planned movie - Constantine. Constantine has been on the table for a while, and I'm sure all of us would love to see it as a movie. But, unfortunately they made some changes. 1. They changed the character from British to American (sunuvabitch). Why? Well, so they can get Nicholas Cage to play him, that's why. It was supposed to start filming this year, but the director quit. And now Cage has dropped out, as well. So who are they opting for to replace him? (Sigh) none other than Ted himself - Keanu Reeves. So much for a good Constantine film...

Yeah, I heard that about B&R. A-fuckin'-men. As for casting issues. Year One couldn't have the same actor because Year One is about a much younger Batman. And I'd rather they didn't get the same actor to play Supes in both movies, because McG's Superman will probably be a much different movie from Batman Vs. Superman. Wonder Woman was my own suggestion, I have no idea. They haven't announced anything else yet. I heard a tiny rumor that they were considering Damon for Bats, but thats very very very far from confirmed. I agree the idea's ambitious, but who better to pull it off than a director like that? I think the movie could be great. And as for the logistics of the story - Bats and Supes going at it - there's two things to consider. One, the conflict of the story is based mostly on ideologies, so Batman and Supes will probably not actually just beat the hell out of each other. We all know Batman wouldn't do that anyway. And two, if it did come down to that, according to the comic mythology, Batman does have that kryptonite ring for just such an occasion. Anyway, what's really got me impressed is that they keep saying this script is not like the other superhero movies. It's character-driven, not action driven. And I think Peterson certainly has the chops to pull that material off.

As for Daredevil...uh...no actual new news, yet, except a few interviews that say that the story is mostly taken from Frank Miller and some Kevin Smith elements. Good choices. And apparently it will feature DD's "radar vision" power. (Sigh) not a good choice. I hated that power. Was so cheesy. But anyway... It's also been confirmed that the director, Johnson, is filming a more violent R-rated cut for the dvd. The studio also has such faith in the film that, yes, a Daredevil 2 is already being planned, and even a Daredevil 3, not to mention an entire Elektra movie spin-off.

Or we could just change it to comic book movie discussion...which, by the way, I just found some interesting information for. Apparently the great director Wolfgang Peterson (yes, Das Boot, Outbreak, and Air Force One Wolfgang Peterson) has agreed to direct a movie called Batman Vs. Superman. Yes, that's right, Bats and Supes in the same movie. And not just in the same movie, but AGAINST each other. The script is by Andrew Kevin Walker (Se7en), is supposed to be incredibly character driven, and apparently involves an act of violence so jarring to our heroes that it pushes both of them to their extreme (Supes to his boy-scout honor, Bats to his self-destructive vengeance) until they've grown so far apart they literally have to duke it out. As a fan boy, I hafta say "cooooooool". The two hero parts are supposed to be cast in the next few weeks. The director is quoted as saying that he's actually looking for "great actors" not action stars. There's also supposed to be "three great parts for women" (Wonder Woman, Lois Lane, Catwoman...maybe?) This movie, along with Aronofsky's Batman:Year One, and McG's Superman (there's also a Catwoman movie scheduled with Ashley Judd, sometime) means that 2004 could be DC's summer.

Could go for one of those, myself...

Yeah...I'm guessing father, since it's Nick Nolte. Eric Bana is playing Bruce. If you don't know his name (god knows I didn't) he was the particularly kick-ass working-alone oakley-sunglasses-wearing soldier in Black Hawk Down.

I dunno. To tell you the truth, it's been so long since I read a Hulk comic, I don't even remember who Brian Banner is.

Hulk movie - nuthin' new, 'cept that Nick Nolte plays Brian Banner. Kooky.

Ok, I was wrong, it played in front of MIB2. 'Dja see it?

The truth is, in action movies having any sort of decent plot rarely happens. In fact, it's rarely possible. Since it's rarely logical to have that much action in a two hour time period, in the real world, plots have to be rarely logical as well. Even that beloved Matrix of yours sacrificed a lot of plot for its action scenes. I mean, it starts with some great philosophical ideas and what does it lead us up to? An hour long action sequence as a capper. I think Dark City did a far better job with the subject matter, because it stayed away from action that just slows such a plot down. You can't expect so much from these movies. You just usually can't fit action and plot together coherently unless you make a 3-fucking-hours-Lord-of-the-Rings-long movie. M:I2 was a decent action movie because it delivered just what it promised. If you were expecting more, you must not have paid attention to the trailers.

This is a topic to talk about a rareity in the film industry - a good sequel. Not just a good sequel, but one that lives up to or perhaps even surpasses its predecessor. Are there any? I think there are. A good sequel brings back everything we loved about a movie - characters, chemistry, settings - and eliminates anything we didn't like. I think there've been a few (James Bond movies don't count). Like, maybe... Aliens Terminator 2 Toy Story 2 Silence of the Lambs The Empire Strikes Back Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade I know I can think of more, but I'm too tired, tonight...maybe tomorrow.

It was alright for a summer popcorn film, but not nearly as clever as the first one was. It seemed like they were trying too hard to match what they did in the original, but they didn't realize that it what made the first one work was originality, timing, and chemistry. Of course, they couldn't have originality. And as for timing, it moved too fast, whereas the first one was willing to slow down to keep the comedy well-timed. And the chemistry was off because the K we know and love wasn't even there during half of the film, and when he was, again, it moved too fast for us to enjoy it. The best part was the locker scene at Grand Central Station. If only the rest've it could have been that creative. Anyway, though, that said. It was a good popcorn flick, but nothing more.

Finally got to see it. Great movie. I did have two quibbles, though. One - and this actually has nothing to do with the movie, but...no big screen preview for Treasure Planet? Damn...wanted to see that. And Two - am I the only one who thinks that, even for a kids movie, that ending wrapped things up just a little too quickly and neatly? By the by, JMT, even if there were more screenings of L&S, that first weekend, you also have to take into account that many, maybe even the majority of tickets were sold at the discounted child price. So that makes it even more impressive that it was able to come so close to MR.

I've no idea... You might have to wait for GoldMember to come out, before you can see it on the big screen. It'll probably be attached to that one, since they're both New Line releases.

The Two Towers teaser just came out. http://www.apple.com/trailers/newline/the_two_towers/ And X2 will be able to make it. Daredevil only started filming a month or two ago, in fact, they're still filming, now. But they're scheduled for a February 14th release, and they'll make it. X2 doesn't come out until May, next year, so they'll have almost a year. It's the pre-production work that takes the most time, these days. Usually, by the time shooting starts, a film can be completed in less than a year.

Yeah, but Alien3 was his first feature. He's had a pretty good track record since then. And Woo didn't do that bad. Cruise's wish with the series (as executive producer) is to have a completely different vision with each installment. He wants each one to explore different styles of action movies (if you believe there is such a thing). Woo's film certainly did that. It explored the plotless, stunt and set piece driven type of action movie. Whereas De Palma's explored the plot-driven espionage movie. I have no idea what Fincher's gonna do, but he's certainly a much different director from either of the first two.

Yeah, I never saw it either. I've heard mixed things. Just remembered because when Michael Caine won, he mentioned in his speech that it was a good thing Cruise didn't win, because supporting actors got much smaller trailers and much smaller checks and he didn't think Cruise would like that change.

Not a clue. They just started shooting on the 17th, so I'm sure they'll be coming up with a teaser, soon. If not, there'll undoubtably be one with Daredevil, in February.

Could be pretty good, actually. This one has David Fincher directing.