REMAKE THIS!! MORIARTY Reviews MR. DEEDS!! 'SAW & Poltergeist Pic, BOTH By Michael Bay!! ROCKY HORROR!! Bernie Mac!!
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Other things have managed to bump REMAKE THIS! from the rotation these last few weeks, but I felt like we needed to do one because of some of the specific stories floating around this week, and because I got a chance to peek at Adam Sandler’s MR. DEEDS on Tuesday night.
I want to remind you that this column isn’t just about bashing upcoming projects. What’s the point in that? Instead, it’s to explore the staggering number of remakes that are being produced these days and examine what has a chance of working and what seems ill-conceived from the start. There’s gold out there... I’m convinced of it... but you have to go looking for it.
And on that note, pick up that pickaxe and follow me. We’ve got some digging to do...
MICHAEL BAY SCARES ME... AND HE WANTS TO SCARE YOU, TOO!!
First up is word of Michael Bay becoming involved with a small, independent horror film and remaking it on a bigger budget. And, no, I’m not talking about ‘SAW. We’ll get to that in a moment.
Instead, it’s a poltergeist film from Indonesia called JELANGKUNG that’s got him going right now. I’ll let one of our readers explain further:
A few weeks ago, I got word of a new Michael Bay project based on an Indonesian film that was recently released. I had hoped to get more info of your site, but it seemed that this project was never mentioned before.
A few months ago, 2 Indonesian music video directors Jose Poernomo and Rizal Mantovani created their first movie, JELANGKUNG (POLTERGEIST), filmed on digital camera. It’s pretty fuzzy, following the horror hype created by Blair Witch. Based around a gang of ghost investigators, the film was praised by fans for its authentic horror and unofficially hyped up by supposed 'cameos' by real ghosts & poltergeists.
The film was a HUGE success, overtaking TITANIC's release locally. It stayed at the cinemas for a very long time. This is rather unusual for a country which tends to get bored really quickly and strives to get the latest of everything.
Now, Michael Bay was interested in re-making JELANGKUNG, as were MIRAMAX/DIMENSION. A deal was made for the directors to make a movie for Michael Bay and one for Miramax. Michael Bay also asked them to look into some CG work for their original film.
In my opinion, this sounds a lot like a copy of the idea to bring RING into US audiences. Studios probably found JELANGKUNG to be a pitch worth rivalling RING's release, but unlike RING, JELANGKUNG's US version will be helmed by the original directors.
Just call me Anditte
Any other readers had a look at JELANGKUNG in the theaters? If so, let me know, and I’ll run your reviews for the original in the next REMAKE THIS! column. I’ll also be looking into this further, to find out what it is that Michael Bay has planned.
THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE MASSACRE CONTINUES!!
I’m not stuttering. That makes sense. Especially the more I hear about this thing.
First of all, I’m going to slap the stupid out of some motherfucker. I’m just not sure who yet.
There’s a paragraph in there that literally makes me cross-eyed with anger. It’s the stupidest thing I’ve heard in a long line of stupid things as I’ve been here at AICN. It is arrogant and ignorant and completely contemptuous of a filmmaker and an audience. See if you can pick it out.
”The original 1974 "Massacre" is about five young adults touring rural Texas who are slowly whittled away by the chainsaw-wielding Leatherface. The updated version is expected to be less gory than the original, focusing more on the thriller aspects of the story.”
Josh Spector wrote the story for VARIETY. I’m going to give Josh the benefit of the doubt and assume that he’s not the person who needs to be roughed up. This particular bit of language has shown up several times now in articles about this proposed remake, suggesting that it’s coming straight out of a press release that is being sent to various outlets. I wish I knew for sure, though. I wish I knew who the chimpanzee is who wrote the phrase.
”The updated version is expected to be less gory than the original...”
Less gory. They’re saying that they’re going to have less gore than Tobe Hooper’s truly groundbreaking horror classic. Because, as anyone who is familiar with that film can attest, it’s nothing but blood and gore and red meat from end to end, right?
What’s that? There’s essentially no gore in the original TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE? Oh, really? Well, that would mean that the soft-skulled pinhead who has decided to emphasize that the new version will be “less gory” has possibly never seen the original. And that would just be crazy, right? I mean, someone involved with the remake having no idea why the original is great... that would be IMPOSSIBLE!! RIGHT?!
I have to go sit down for a moment. I want to hand the floor over to Vern, one of the web’s best writers about all things film-related. Make sure to check out THEN FUCK YOU, JACK, his amazing website. He sent me a letter when this story first broke that is worth sharing:
I know it is hard to accept but Michael Bay really is producing a remake of one of the greatest american independent films ever made, THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE. I know you boys have met this man so maybe you can confirm that he really is one of those lizard people from the tv show 'V' like I suspect. I saw him on the MTV movie awards where he dedicated his award to the 3,000 people who died at Pearl Harbor.
That's right, he dedicated his MTV MOVIE AWARD, the one that he got for BEST ACTION SEQUENCE, an action sequence that was making good summertime fun out of THEIR DEATHS. I'm sure it was a great honor. And then he peeled off his mask and ate a spider or a mouse or whatever those V guys ate.
Yep, that's the inhuman lizard man producing a remake of one of my favorite movies. Thanks.
Anyway, below is an article from the Hollywood Reporter, in case you missed it. In the article we learn:
1. that Michael Bay plans for the movie to be "hip."
2. that they still think the movie will have less gore than the original, which of course has almost no gore.
3. that it will be directed by Marcus Nispel, the auteur behind such films as "Terence Trent D'Arby" and "UPS" and "C&C Music Factory" and of course those JC Penney commercials we all probaly saw. They were probaly very adequately done I bet. (see www.marcusnispel.com for a complete resume)
Harry, I know that this is not something that can be stopped. Elections will be stolen, governments will be run by oil executives, and Michael Bay will get two criterion editions and then take an option out on our souls. These things cannot be stopped unless the people rise up against it, and frankly, the people don't give a fuck because there's a whole new crop of reality television shows popping up. But for those of us who do care, where is the outrage? Must we go out in silence?
I refuse to. Let me be the first to say that Michael Bay, you bitch hog, you ruined my Sonny Bono wig.
Well said. Well said.
GUESS WHO’S REMAKING A “CLASSIC”!!
I got a lot of e-mail this week with people flipping out about the idea of Bernie Mac starring in a remake of Stanley Kramer’s GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER. People seemed outraged and kept moaning about them remaking this “classic.”
Here’s the thing... when was the last time you watched GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER?
Because it may not be popular to say this, but this is how I honestly feel: I don’t think it’s a particularly good movie to start with, and I think Bernie Mac might just be able to do something great with it.
I can already see the flood of e-mail from people pointing out to me that the film was nominated for 10 Academy Awards, and that it won two. They will bellow that the awards are PROOF... INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF... that the film is a work of art, a classic, and that I am out of my mind. It’s certainly a sacred cow, one of those films that is reflexively given a free pass. But before you scream at me, ask yourself this: how many times have you see a film win Best Picture and thought to yourself, “Oh, bullshit.” I think it’s dated horribly, though, and there’s a preachy self-righteous smugness to a lot of the humor that rubs me the wrong way. It’s “message” filmmaking with a capital “M”. I think Stanley Kramer was a filmmaker of decidedly mixed gifts, and he was capable of profoundly painful moments. When I recently watched this film again, I found it false from start to finish.
An update with Mac could essentially be played as MEET THE PARENTS with a slightly more complex spin. The joy of PARENTS was watching the King Of Squirm (Ben Stiller) wither under the focus of the King of Glare (Robert De Niro). With the right person cast opposite Mac, this could be a source of nearly endless amusement. I think Mac’s show for Fox this season was surprisingly strong, with a sense of humor that had some real edge and recalled the best seasons of THE COSBY SHOW. And Mac’s getting a lot of camera time right now as he gears up for BAD SANTA, HEAD OF STATE (a movie at DreamWorks that is being directed by Chris Rock), and CHARLIE’S ANGELS 2. By the time he gets around to doing this, he should be ready to rip.
I would beg the producers of this new version to find a comic writer with a bite, someone who is going to write you a script that will snare you a great co-lead for Mac, a script that is smart about race and family. If John Ridley (UNDERCOVER BROTHER, THREE KINGS) is available, make him your first stop when shopping. His recent work as a novelist proves he’s got real depth as a writer, and he’s due for a monster hit. At some point, his sensibilities are going to strike lightning, and someone’s going to make a mountain of money off of him. A smart, topical, full-tilt remake of this film could be that right place, right time.
LET’S DO THE TIME WARP AGAIN! AGAIN!!
”I’m on a ROCKY HORROR mailing list, and I just got some crazy shit in my mail! Check this crazy shit out!”
That was just one of the letters from fans of THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW. Sal Piro, the world’s biggest fan, got ‘em all stirred up with a release that came as a bit of a surprise to everyone, I think:
“Dear ROCKY HORROR fans and friends...
The RHPS Fan Club has a big scoop for all its devoted followers. In Celebration of the 30th Anniversary of the birth of "Rocky" (when Richard was writing the original play)...Lou Adler and Twentieth Century Fox will shortly announce a huge broadcast television event for February 2003....
A remake of the Rocky Horror Picture show with an all-new celebrity cast.
What makes this more exciting is that the director of this project will be Stephen Elliot who directed the much beloved "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" and the cult classic "Welcome to Woop-Woop"".
Casting will be going underway soon and we will keep you informed of all updates.
Keep Time Warping...
So Fox Television is doing a TV remake of ROCKY HORROR? That makes sense, actually, considering the recent success of the various revivals of the stage production here in LA and in New York. It was hip to go see the various casts, and I’m sure they’ll pick and choose from the various productions as well as giving some new actors a chance to play a favorite character. I think a lot of actors in their 30s now spent some time performing at various midnight shows around the country, getting their fix in front of a crowd with the film playing behind them. A chance to be in a new ROCKY HORROR film and really make the various roles theirs might bring out some interesting closet fans with some clout. Stephen Elliott should have a blast casting this thing, and we’ll keep our ear out for more news as it breaks...
SOME LIKE IT OLD!!
I am confused. I don’t know if I desperately want to see this or if I think it’s a terrible idea.
Seeing Tony Curtis live in SOME LIKE IT HOT has a certain undeniable appeal when you first hear it. SOME LIKE IT HOT is one of the greatest American comedies, an enormously funny and progressive and adult film with a cast turning in career-best performances left and right.
And that’s why I hesitate. Part of SOME LIKE IT HOT was Curtis, no doubt, and a big part is the gaspingly funny screenplay by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, but Lemmon and Monroe and Joe E. Brown and George Raft and the kick-ass black and white work of cinematographer Charles Lang. And without them, can it even begin to compare?
If any readers attend a performance of this, write in for this column and let us know how it is. I’m genuinely curious if this production manages to harness any of the magic of the still-remarkable original.
I THINK YOU UNDERESTIMATE THE SNEAKY!!
So I went to the new Adam Sandler film.
Based on your reaction to that sentence, you already know if you should spend the $9 to see it. If you groaned and rolled your eyes, there is nothing on display in this film that will convert you in any way, shape, form, or fashion. This is a standard issue vehicle, a thinly-written update of the Gary Cooper/Jean Arthur film. The original was a pretty slick and effective Frank Capra picture with a sweet natured script by Robert Riskin, who also wrote IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT and MEET JOHN DOE, among others. If the idea of Sandler and long-time crony Tim Herlihy and more-recent crony Steve Brill daring to update Capra and Riskin offends you, then don’t go. Seriously. You’re not going to walk out converted, convinced, won over. It’s not that good a movie.
On the other hand, if you like Sandler and you have seen all his films (including LITTLE NICKY) and you believe that he’s got an amiable goofball charm, and you find something to like in all of his films so far, then by all means, go see MR. DEEDS, because it’s pretty funny. Sandler is playing himself here, and Herlihy and Brill have reimagined Mandrake Falls, Deeds’s home town, as a place where everyone is just like Sandler. This is a town of complete innocents, like the world of PEE WEE’S BIG ADVENTURE. It’s a cartoon. It’s not brilliant stuff, but it is a pretty enjoyable setup. Fish out of water movies work best if you see how truly at home the fish is in the water to begin with. Deeds is beloved in Mandrake Falls, the center of his community. When his uncle (played briefly by Harve Presnell) dies, Deeds suddenly inherits $40 billion, and goes to the city to sort things out.
And, yeah... as usual... there’s hilarity... and it ensues.
Steve Brill’s direction makes me long for the polished professionalism of Dennis Dugan... and THERE’S a sentence I never thought I’d type. What Brill lacks in visual accumen, though, he makes up for in the way he gives Sandler and his supporting cast room to play around. John Turturro is a shameless scene-stealer, and he makes the most of every second of screen time that he has as Emilio, Deeds’s “berry berry sneeeeky” butler in the apartment he inherits from Uncle Preston. Allen Covert plays Marty, a douchebag tabolid reporter who works to humiliate Deeds and who harbors a crush on Babe Bennett (Winona Ryder). Babe has also been sicced on Deeds, and she sets up a “chance meeting” with him. He falls for her, hard, and she sets him up, videotaping him, and her show begins to rip him apart on a daily basis. He has no clue she’s involved, and he really pours on the romance. This is Sandler in WEDDING SINGER mode, and a big part of you liking DEEDS is going to depend on you liking WEDDING SINGER.
There’s plenty of typical Sandler weirdness, with Steve Buscemi doing disturbing work as a Mandrake Falls local aptly called Crazy-Eyes. A sequence involving a fire, some cats, and a trampoline is as silly as Steve Martin circa THE JERK. Most of the film is spent painting Deeds as the nicest guy on Earth, though, and that ends up robbing the film of even cursory tension. Of course Deeds is going to triumph. He’s never even remotely challenged in this film. He should have a lightbulb behind his head in every shot, like in old Jesus movies, symbolizing how pure and perfect he is. I wish Deeds was a little bit more of a thug on occasion, since the moments where he erupts into comic violence are some of my favorite. Gary Cooper was a nice guy, and nobody did decent better. Watching Sandler do this is, ultimately, a little bit dull. Don’t get me wrong. I laughed. There’s no more direct review of a comedy than that. I’m not hyperbolizing. My sides didn’t hurt. I didn’t have tears streaming down my face. I laughed at a lot of this film, and what didn’t work for me didn’t bother me. More than anything, watching this made me impatient to see PUNCHDRUNK LOVE later this year, since a stretch will do Sandler a world of good as a performer. No matter what, it should be fascinating to see.
Readers Talkbackcomments powered by Disqus
+ Expand All
June 28, 2002, 8:51 a.m. CST
But I'm not exactly a fan of horror. I couldn't care less about it. I actually like Michael Bay. I like Bad Boys and Armageddon and think The Rock is brilliant. As for Pearl Harbor, it was ok. The Texas remake will bomb, its just not needed. All the sequels were SHITE, and now a days the film has very little impact. Mr Deeds. Couldn't care less. If I get a press screening I'll go, but I'm not paying to see it.
June 28, 2002, 9:02 a.m. CST
by Tokyo Joe
It was the first film I rushed out to rent when I left the UK (along with Clockwork Orange and the Exorcist, all of which finally got released recently!). Very cool. This Talkback's weird. The list has 5 or 6 posts but the page only has one! Maybe they're invisible...
June 28, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST
by Tokyo Joe
Oh well, the mysterious talkbacks are gone from the list. Whole load of posts got deleted I suppose. Or maybe they were never there in the first place like the gore in Texas Chainsaw Massacre...
June 28, 2002, 9:04 a.m. CST
I saw Some Like It Hot for the first time the other day. It was incredibly predictable. Every joke. I enjoyed it nonetheless. I'm assuming that since it's considered a great film, everyone and everything that followed "borrowed" elements from it, hence the predictability.
June 28, 2002, 9:11 a.m. CST
Finally someone has pointed out what has been irritating me from the start of this fiasco... the original TCM is not gory AT ALL and relies on other things to bring out the horror. What is Michael Bay thinking? I just can't wait to see what overdone steamy pile he oozes out this time.
June 28, 2002, 9:14 a.m. CST
by The Biomind
I really hope there will be a remake of Peter Jackson's LOTR...soon! Because this movie sucked BIG TIME! SPIDER-MAN needs to be remade, too. I can't remember a movie that was as boring as SPIDER-MAN. They really shouldn't let b-movie directors do the work of real director's.
June 28, 2002, 9:22 a.m. CST
by Hegemony Cricket
"An update with Mac could essentially be played as MEET THE PARENTS with a slightly more complex spin." Far be it for me to go wax nostalgic over GWCTD (Bet they never thought that film would get an acronym)... but swapping Poitier for Mac would be like giving Leatherface wacky bunny ears and an apron that reads "Kiss the Cook".
June 28, 2002, 9:26 a.m. CST
Come on. In that bustier!!! Goddamn!
June 28, 2002, 9:27 a.m. CST
by Mutant X
I never should have read that little news blip before noon. My day's fucked now. BAY! LISTEN HERE, BAY! KEEP YOUR GODDAMN HACK HANDS OFF OF CHAINSAW!!!!!!!! Stick to things you're good at, like $80 million boom-a-thons and drinking cow blood.
June 28, 2002, 9:27 a.m. CST
by The Biomind
Michael "Armageddon Habor" Bay should remake BATTLEFIELD EARTH! He could put a meteor into the movie which lands on Travolta's ass. And when he wins an MTV-movie-award for "Best Fun Action Sequence Based On A Real Life Tragedy In Which Thousands Died", he can dedicate his award to Julias Roberts, because she can hold a banana in her mouth...SQUARE!
June 28, 2002, 9:41 a.m. CST
it's refreshing to read Remake This, where we don't bash the remaker Just Because he's a remaker. I enjoy the anticipation of waiting for the next remake or TV adaptation to come out -- sometimes you get great stuff like Charlies Angels or Vanilla Sky or the Very Brady Sequel, sometimes you get turds like Planet of the Apes. To my way of thinking, remaking a movie is no different from mounting a new production of a classic play, and I say bring it on. *** Deeds might be OK but I'm with you Mo, it just makes me hornier for PunchDrunk Love, or whatevr it's going to be called after a couple years of PTA's hand-wringing. *** Oh yeah, I watched the commentary version of the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre on IFC last nite, and there's enough corpse-goop and cow slobber in the first 10 minutes to make any newbie think it's a gory movie. Let's hope the remake is every bit as good as Pearl Harbor.
June 28, 2002, 9:48 a.m. CST
I don't mind Bay's films when he's sticking to simple testosterone fueled action flicks. These days it's getting harder and harder to do something really crowd pleasing in that particular genre (let's not even go into originality) but he's done it well in the past. But i was under the impression that 'hip' horror films were officially dead and buried. What could be done in that genre has been done so give it up mickey. If you really want to try something you've never done before and gain our disrespect then do a Robin Williams sentimental comedy (he's got a few more in him and we all know it). By the way, could someone tell me if Death to Smoochy was any good, from what I've heard it will be going straight to video in the u.k.
June 28, 2002, 9:50 a.m. CST
WTF? Now, because it's been said many times both in the Moriarty's article and this talkback, I don't need to tell you that Texas Chain Saw isn't gory at all. However, I do feel the need to comment on this disgusting statement from the Yahoo! article: "the updated version will be focusing more on the thriller aspects of the story." How is that possible? Now, I know that TCSM isn't a "thriller", but I remember that when I saw it it was like taking an awfully disturbing rollercoaster ride. I felt bad, very disturbed, when it was finished. It's so relentless, so intense... so incredibly fantastic! How the hell are Bay and that Marcus-guy-director going to focus more on the thriller aspects? Is it even possible? Are there any "thriller aspects" in the film at all? At least not the kind I know Bay is thinking about. I find this so offensive. And to make it even better, they're probably going to hire Marco Beltrami or Don Davis to do the score. Or, god forbid it, Hans Zimmer! ughhhhh....
June 28, 2002, 9:52 a.m. CST
by Cutter's Way
The original TCM isn't just a pretty good horror movie, but recognized as a great, masterful film. Scooby Dooku is right on the money - the remake will be a by-the-numbers WB commercial with what I predict will be MORE gore than the original. Marcus Nispel, by the way, was that psychopathic dipshit who wrote out this unbelievably arrogant manifesto about how he should be treated on set. If you can find it somewhere, you're in for a laugh - after the vomitous contortions subside.
June 28, 2002, 10 a.m. CST
Christ. What do you do? Do you fight? Do you stand up against all this shit? Well, probably not. At the end of the day they're making the deals. Hopefully one or two of them will read about us on the site. On one hand I'm glad that execs are looking back at Dawn of the Dead, The Warriors and Texas Chainsaw with what I hope is fond memories. But like a lot people I'm disappointed to see them getting pillaged. By all means use these films as springboards, understand how they work then try and create something new. But it's a total waste of time trying to remake them. These films are somebody's signature, they're seminal. Even remaking Solaris still strikes me as just being the fashionable thing to do.
June 28, 2002, 10:13 a.m. CST
Gore, you say? Some cheap, chocolate syrup/food colouring on a white shirt? - Not in this flick. No, that would be too expensive. My favorite bit - just after the guy in the wheelchair gets his, and the lead is running around in the pitch black with Leatherface close behind, and you can't see shit except for the flashlight she is carrying-- and then, 45 seconds into the chase she drops the flashlight and you REALLY can't see shit AND the chase still continues for another five minutes - brilliant.
June 28, 2002, 10:17 a.m. CST
by The Biomind
They can remake TCM hundreds of times. The original movie you all love so much will still exist. The release of the remake will even make the original more popular, because many people who don't know TCM will want to know, what the original is about.
June 28, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
by The Biomind
...because it will be much scarier than the original. What on earth could be scarier than Freddie Piss Jr. walking around with a chainsaw. And they can have a rapper in this movie, too. Well, isn't that scary, people?
June 28, 2002, 10:23 a.m. CST
Why would anyone be eagerly anticipating the pairing of a no-talent hack (Sandler) with a pretentious, long-winded hack (PTA)? Even assuming that you think PTA has a compelling artistic vision, would you be this excited if Pauly Shore were announced as the new lead for the new Martin Scorcese or David Fincher? Curiosity has its limits.
June 28, 2002, 10:27 a.m. CST
Whoever made the comment saying Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the greatest independent films ever, THANK YOU. I have so tired of hearing the words INDEPENDENT FILMS associated with Merchant/Ivory and films about two gay cowboys sitting around eatin' pudding. While there is nothing wrong with Merchant/Ivory or other art house fare, it is good to see that someone realizes movies like Texas Chainsaw Massacre are Independent Films. And while we will never see a film like Massacre at Sundance, i beleive it is time for the Independent Horror film to have it's place in the sun. WHO'S WITH ME???????
June 28, 2002, 10:28 a.m. CST
You are so right, man! I was thinking that exact same thing when I heard that Michael Bay was going to remake this. That kind of poster design is so tired and old right now (it was never really effective to begin with). Why does every horror movie have to have that same poster? The only good promo design that I've seen for a movie was 13 Ghosts (the poster turned out to be better than the movie itself).
June 28, 2002, 10:31 a.m. CST
Not to defend the remake, which will suck. No question. And yeah, I'd like to see a new production of Rocky. I'm pretty bumbed that I didn't get to see the stage production with Arquette as Frankie.
June 28, 2002, 10:35 a.m. CST
As usual, Moriarty is THE MAN when it comes to news and reviews. Thanks for the level-headed and thorough reviews that always seem to jibe with my own tastes-minus some of the extensive appreciation of the classics. Keep up the good work, man-you make this site worthwhile.
June 28, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
Two things. Guess Who NOT a good movie?! Utterly ridiculous. Yes, it's sentimental and yes, it doesn't take any drastic chances in its depiction of race relations. But it's moving, sweet, and impeccably acted. You must be blind, deaf, AND have a heart of stone in order to call yourself a movie fan and not have at least some affection for this movie. Secondly, it's the last movie in the world that needs a remake. Interracial marriage, while perhaps still slightly controverrsial (very slightly), is accepted widely enough now that a remake of this movie would be pointless.
June 28, 2002, 10:38 a.m. CST
I don't understand the big hubub over this. TCM wasn't that great to begin with. I can't comprehend the love for this mediocre movie.
June 28, 2002, 10:51 a.m. CST
by Neil MacAuley
...possibly the worst film, technically and morally, I'VE EVER SEEN. I'm serious, I was APPALLED by the movie -- not because I oppose it on a moral level, you can make films about any topic, but mostly because technically it's really, really bad filmmaking. Insultingly bad filmmaking with content that's just disgusting and has no relevance or point or theme, it merely exists for shock value, for titillation, like THE CELL. Other indies at the time had much more sophistication, don't kid yourself. I watched it this year for the first time, on IFC, and granted, watching it as a 29 year-old in 2002 is a different experience than seeing it in a theater in its original run. But a) none of you actually saw it in a theater, you all saw it on video later anyway, and b) its only merit is "shock value," so you all missed out on that because you no doubt knew what it was about before you saw it and it's just NOT scary. Period. It's not well directed, the performances are terrible, there's NO script, any dialogue there is is horrible and cartoony, and it has no theme and is making no point. With other horror films, you can stretch and find a theme. With TCM, there is...none. If you're going to sit here and tell me that it's about our unconscious fears and disrespecting nature and the lower-class man with nothing to lose usurping the ruling class and all that b.s. (which applies to Deliverance, but not this hunk of crap) then you're sorely mistaken and FOOLING YOURSELF. I'm serious, I'm not just saying this to pick a fight -- I watched it a few months ago and it's terrible, really bad filmmaking. You guys probably watched it late one night at a sleepover party in the dark with your fellow 9 year-olds and thought it was "cool," but you haven't bothered to watch it since. (of course the alternative, that you still watch it regularly, is even more frightening and says something about your social adaptation and knowledge of filmmaking) Michael Bay only wants it because it's a brand name. He can sell a brand name to a studio. I can see how Halloween or Friday the 13th were influential and had decent elements to them and some professionalism of filmmaking and actual scary moments, but not TCM. Watch it again, I implore you. And if you're one of those people who thinks it's "hilarious," then you've got a serious problem.
June 28, 2002, 11:14 a.m. CST
They're too busy bashing Michael Bay. And who can blame them...
June 28, 2002, 11:19 a.m. CST
June 28, 2002, 11:43 a.m. CST
I really think they should cast Anthony Stewart Head as Frankenfurter. He's done the role before, and anyone who's seen "Once More with Feeling" episode of Buffy know's he's got the ability to sing. Plus he's already does work with Fox (via Buff). You don't get much more perfect then that.
June 28, 2002, 11:45 a.m. CST
by Nonkel Bob
Michael Bay's "hip" wants me wanna puke !!!!!!!!!!!
June 28, 2002, 11:50 a.m. CST
No, really! There are a lot of unanswered questions from TCM and TCM2 (which I happen to like, thank you very much). Examples: Are Choptop and the Hitchhiker supposed to be the same guy? And if not, what's the story? When watching TCM you assume that the older guy is the father. But in TCM2 he's revealed as an older brother. That means there's an entire generation of Sawyers unaccounted for. What's their story? The kids in TCM are going to their grandparent's old house. The hitchhiker implies that his family has lived in the area for a long time. Why didn't the kids' grandparents ever warn them about the cannibals next door? What if the grandparents were actually IN ON the whole thing? So many questions! sk
June 28, 2002, 11:55 a.m. CST
I don't know about the others, but who here thinks Jack Black would be a perfect Eddie? picture him singing Hot Patootie.
June 28, 2002, 12:06 p.m. CST
Didn't we share a cell once? Cuz Damn! Finally someone who knows what the score is on that little turd of a movie. 'TCM' ? Can I have a Nigga Please, and a God-damn?! That pic is easily one of THE worst films I have ever had the Dis-pleasure to watch - up there with that 'Fast & Furious', and the shitfeast some call 'True Romance'. Bad writing, and scary acting (uninfuckin-tentionally scary) you watch that film you don't know whether to laugh or cry, because the actings so bad and its boring with a capital B! Being remade? So What? <Sew-Buttons> I'm not suprised you don't hear of the guy that made it anymore...personally I don't think it should be remade, yup tha's right. I think it should be left in 'the hole' and never let out to the light of day (just like in that BS story about 'Henri Young' but that's another story to rant on). Later for Tobe Hooper, its Chow Time.
June 28, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST
So essentially,they're going to make yet another movie about another bunch of Aryan uberchildren mugging for the camera while irony upon irony is thrown at the audience instead of real horror. It's things like this that make me wish I lived in a country that makes better horror movies...
June 28, 2002, 12:09 p.m. CST
The guy is the very definition of "hack." Look, the guy can do a great high-contrast, feel-good AT&T commercial where attractive yet realistic-looking people of varying races and ages stare wistfully at the camera as the sun sets picturesquely over a beach or something and the narrator tells you phoning Guam costs only 99 cents a minute. Give him anything longer than thirty seconds and he just comes apart. He's completely incapable of telling a coherent story using pictures and sounds.
June 28, 2002, 12:23 p.m. CST
You would almost HAVE to tell the studio that to get the project rolling. I'm sure most of the execs haven't seen the original at all or in a very long time, so assume or remember it as more gory than it is. If Bay is remaking it, then you know he's seen it a bunch of times recently and knows the difference. And dammit, Janet! As much as I hate to admit it, Britney Spears would be an inspired choice for Janet in Rocky Horror. I just hope they don't get a cast that simply does an impression of the film cast. That's weak- I'd rather just see the film in that case. I say go balls out and do it totally new in the musical adaption and especially the costumes. I've seen two productions that tried this and they really breathed new life into the material.
June 28, 2002, 12:29 p.m. CST
by Redbox Vacation
I love Sydney, Hepburn & Tracy (This was his last film) and there are some wonderful moments, but You're right "Guess who's Coming to Dinner" is a piece of dated fluff that was built heaped in white guilt and is almost insulting by today's standards. They have to almost make Poitier a Saint before they set him up with a white girl. He's a Doctor who works for charities and lost his wife and Daughter in a Car accident. He's won awards and he's well respected. What if he was just a regular guy who loved their daughter? It just doesn't sit as well today. But I still have to love it for the great Tracy Hepburn chemistry and Sydney is always Sydney.
June 28, 2002, 1:09 p.m. CST
Somebody needs to Greenlight O'Brien's sequel script "Revenge of the Old Queen". It partly reads as a wicked satire of "The X-Files". Hell, I just want a new movie filled with great Richard O'Brien songs! (Screw you, I liked most of the songs from "Shock Treatment!")
June 28, 2002, 1:16 p.m. CST
by Sod Off Baldric
Why is everyone talking about Turner Classic Movies? I thought this article was about Texas Chainsaw Massacre. What? Oh...never mind.
June 28, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST
How blind and ignorant can one be to NOT see even the smallest part of the genius that is TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE?!!!
June 28, 2002, 1:38 p.m. CST
Seriously, has that been explored as an option? Bernie Mac all bent out of shape because his daughter is dating a white guy? There could be something there.
June 28, 2002, 1:47 p.m. CST
Denounce him if you value your soul. Seriously, this guy has not made a movie that even comes close to good. His films are nothing but sound and fury. I'm not asking for great art from him. I'm asking for even an ounce of substance, of thought, of focused purpose to bring a foundation to his visceral gaudiness. A Pauly Shore movie directed by David Fincher? Dope!
June 28, 2002, 2:02 p.m. CST
by TS Thomas
Ahh, leave the guy alone ;) The attack scene in Pearl Harbour was fine, I didn't see it done as "fun". How on earth could anyone here say they though that was a "fun" scene, sure there's plenty of action & all but its about as "fun" as the normandy landing in saving private ryan. Would we whinge about speilberg for dedicating an oscar to those who died that day also?
June 28, 2002, 2:23 p.m. CST
u dont know shit about good movies. If u hate LOTR then what the fuck is a good movie too you? Dude Wheres My Car? LOTR is the best movie ever u fucking asshole!
June 28, 2002, 2:25 p.m. CST
...and the thing that strikes me repeatedly about that movie is how strange a time capsule it is. Watching it I just have trouble fathoming what all the drama was about, but it is well-acted and I find it compelling in a Seventh-Heaven-wholesome-non-controversial sort of way. It is educational about our sociological history. Having been born after the Civil Rights movement, it's difficult for me to reconcile ignorance like that ever existing, even if I know it did and worse. I'm indifferent to a remake, though there is still enough racist attitude in this country that a message at the movies like this one could do some good.
June 28, 2002, 2:39 p.m. CST
Look, Spencer Tracy was a gifted comedic actor in many of his films, and casting him as an Archie Bunker prototype worked pretty well. Mac can be funny as hell, but if I were his daughter I'd be scared shitless of the day I brought a white boy home. Turn the whole thing on its ear: I say make it about the racism so barely hidden in America's black community. I mean, really, there have been a LOT of movies out there directed at white people to teach them people of other colors are okay. Thing is, white folks aren't the only people who prejudge others based on their skin color or religion or clothing, and I think it'd be nice to see that addressed in modern movies. Bernie Mac is pretty popular, funny as shit, and actually has the ability to run a hell of a lot deeper than Martin Lawrence or somebody else would. I say do it, give it a twist, and maybe it works. Have his daughter bring home Seth Green and the shit would be killer, ("I'm about to beat that boy like a red-hea...ummm, I mean, a WHITE BOY?!?") but they'll go with a prettier white boy. Still, this could actually work. Oh, and as for remaking "Some Like It Hot"--good movie, bad idea. There' hadn't been a "Sorority Girls" or a "Just One Of The Guys" or any one of the dozens of other "I'm pretending to be a different gender, and it's FUNNY!" movies. Plus, who has the iconic status of a Marilyn these days to pull it off? Nobody, that's who. If there's a good reason to remake, feel free. If you're just too stupid to come up with your own ideas, get outta Hollywood.
June 28, 2002, 2:41 p.m. CST
1. Spielberg winning an oscar - the reason this would be different is because the oscars don't have "best action sequence" - do they? I don't think so. Also, their trophy isn't shaped like a gold bag of popcorn and is not given in the same mtv context. In my opinion. 2. You college kids that claim 'Saw is a poor example of filmmaking - wait until you get older, you will understand. Like has been pointed out, this is not a film designed for you to find subtext in and write bad essays about. It is a pure work of nightmarish relentlessness and is constructed brilliantly. And if you really believe that the acting is bad then there is almost no point in arguing with you because you are so far off your rocker you're gonna have to borrow one from somebody on the other side of the planet. The hitchiker played by Ed Neil is, in particular, one of the most brilliant psychopath performances in horror history (the cook is also excellent). 3. I have decided that the way to come to terms with this saw remake is to imagine that the original and part 2 are one series, and that parts 3 and 4 are sequels to the Michael Bay production. 4. I think the newsie who suggested that Bernie Mac should play Spencer Tracy is right. Not necessarily that that's how it should be, but that's how it will be, is my guess. And I just wanted to mention Melvin Van Peebles' view of Guess Who's Coming To Dinner. He complains in his video essay Classified X that Poitier is a perfect rich saint and she's a "pimply faced" nobody but that because he's black the movie considers them evenly matched. I bet the remake won't have the same problem.
June 28, 2002, 3:11 p.m. CST
by otis von zipper
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner is a very nice turn by 3 of the biggest names in film, and that's all it is. Wearing it's politics on its sleeve, it holds no relevence for audiences today, and the less said about Katherine Houghton (Hepburn's neice) the better. The best that could be said about it now is that perhaps folks who watch it might examine their own prejudices and think how they'd react, which is why a remake is quite appropriate. Examine the issues for people today. Instead of Mac playing the Tracy role, have him playing a suitor to a single mother. Then we examine the feelings of today's youth who haven't been brought up under racism having to face it head on along with mixed feelings they'd have anyway regarding a potential step-father. Can't you see it? White suburban kids listening to Snoop Dogg and Common, watching Martin Lawrence shows/movies can't accept the Mac going out with their mother. And as to the Massacre remake by Bay, complaining about Bay making any movie is akin to complaining about the Bush administration. They are here, and they will do their evil deeds no matter how many intelligent people scream in horror.
June 28, 2002, 3:32 p.m. CST
...in his Minority Report review redeemed it. Why does this site, (Harry in particular) continue do rag on Spielberg for trying something he hasnt done before when people like Michael Bay run around remaking Texas Chainsaw Massacre?
June 28, 2002, 4:47 p.m. CST
by Neil MacAuley
Period point blank. You're an idiot with NO taste.
June 28, 2002, 4:54 p.m. CST
We need a good Pirate movie. "Cutthroat Island" was crap but it shouldn't have sunk a genre like it did Carloco pictures.
June 28, 2002, 4:57 p.m. CST
by Sith Witch
True there was fairly little blood, but those two scenes are so disturbing that it more than makes up for the colour red...Screw the remake! Make a prequel.
June 28, 2002, 4:58 p.m. CST
by Sith Witch
June 28, 2002, 5:50 p.m. CST
June 28, 2002, 5:58 p.m. CST
This is among the worst, most blasphemous ideas I've run across on this site, and I've been around since Day One. Yes, it's dated. Yes, it wears its politics on its sleeve. Yes, Katherine Houghton is abominably bad (or absolutely brilliant, if she intended to play the character as a child-like ninny). It is also, however, a classic in the history of socially relevant cinema. In addition, in spite of the embarassing Houghton, it contains four priceless performances by Poitier, Hepburn, Tracy, and Cecil Kellaway. It reminds us how far we've come as a nation, and gives us an idea of how far we have to go. And on top of all of this, despite its flaws, it is an immensely entertaining film. It shouldn't be remade, and certainly not with Bernie Mac of all people. If it must be remade, reteam Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan, and make it a story about a couple coming to terms with their son or daughter's gay marriage. That'd be a more socially relevant concept. But frankly, it shouldn't be remade at all.
June 28, 2002, 6:25 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
With Bernie Mac in the Spencer Tracy role. Angela Bassett in the Kate Hepburn role. Their daughter, Thandie Newton, comes home from college with her fiance. Tom Green. The real Tom Green as Tom Green. Bernie is having his boss and her husband over for dinner the same night. But Tom's just dropped three tabs of acid. Wackiness abounds.
June 28, 2002, 6:26 p.m. CST
My father owns his own furniture shop. Does jobs around town for a lot of high-end clients. Michael Bay is one of them. As a matter of fact, Bay used to live next door to my father. One night, I was helping my dad out at Bay Studios here in Santa Monica. I got to me one of his 'apprentice directors'. Initially, the guy was alright. A little pretentious and proddy. He kinda had the attitude of one of those film kids who just knows all the blocks. Listening to him talk more and more, I came to the conclusion he was an idiot. What does this have to do with anything? When we left that night, we talked about projects. He said: "Yeah, I'm thinking of doing a remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre." You read that right. The prime offender, right in front of my very face. The director of the new remake. Had I known at the time that this 'project' would actually become a full-blown remake - I'd have castrated him right then and there. Instead I said: "Yeah, cause Tobie Hooper's obviously wasn't good enough." My father and he both gave me a strange look. I just should my head in shame. ... what an atrocity. First Dawn of the Dead, now this. All of my favorites are being raped by the new young pups that want to break into hollywood. There is no expletive that I can think of right now that really emphasizes the anger that I feel. Why not come up with something original you skinny-glasses-wearing-messy-haired-trendy-stained-little-cunt?! Ah, that now I feel better.
June 28, 2002, 6:48 p.m. CST
Michael Bay could make a movie about the Holocoust...or September 11th...or anyone other event that is beyond his 'talents.' Movie goers, pray and pray NOW.
June 28, 2002, 7:18 p.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
In one foolish movie New Line have all-but obliterated any geek good-will they have built up over LOTR by agreeing to distribute this turd. I vow a persoanl fatwah on each and every person that goes and sees this... (gag, choke, huuuuuurrrrllll!!!)... movie.
June 28, 2002, 7:40 p.m. CST
by hank quinlan
Hey I loved The Rock and Armageddon. Harbor was dull. But anyways...I just wanted to say that because a bunch of California assholes decided to shoot the Chainsaw remake in the dead heat of a Texas summer I lost all the crew for my horror film. This, Bay, I can NEVER forgive. You smarmy fuck. Fuck you and Marcus Nispel. And fuck your million dollar toilet paper Stay. It's bad enough you has to destroy one of the coolest films ever (that tracking shot under the swing!) you fucked with independent filmmakers. I used to defend you. But this time it's personal.
June 28, 2002, 7:46 p.m. CST
"Anyone who thinks TCM is 'genius' thinks The Cell is an amazing movie (it's exploitative trash) and has never kissed a girl and is violently scared by a mouse scurrying across the floor." What kind of a generalization is that, buddy? I thought the cell was a piece of shit. It had some nice shots but it played like a bad episode of millennium. There are many bad movies in this world. That does not change the scientific fact that you are not old enough to understand the undeniable power of the 'Saw. When you get a little older you will apologize to us, or pretend like you never said all this crap. That is a promise.
June 28, 2002, 9:09 p.m. CST
It's too bad they don't remake bad films instead of good ones. Micheal Bay should remake PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE instead of a classic like "Chainsaw".
June 28, 2002, 9:25 p.m. CST
ONLY BAD MOVIES SHOULD BE REMADE,LEAVE THE CLASSIC'S ALONE! IF YOU WANT TO REMAKE SOMETHING REMAKE "HEAVEN'S GATE",OR STROKER ACE,OR CITY HEAT,OR STOP OR MY MOM WILL SHOOT OR RHINESTONE OR ANY RECENT MOVIE THAT STAR'S JUDGE REINHOLD .
June 28, 2002, 10:41 p.m. CST
...and all i've seen is the trailer.
June 29, 2002, 12:56 a.m. CST
this is truly a sad occasion. if i were a rich man, i'd put a price of Michael Bay's talentless head. What will he ruin next? My prediction - the new TCM - PG13. I think Nostradamus might even have predicted it as like the third sign of the apocalypse. Next Adam Sandler will start remaking Frank Capra and Harrison Ford will try to play Humphrey Bogart in Sabrina and then he'll try to play a Russian submarine commander and Ben Affleck (who i actually like occasionally) will be a superhero, and Spielberg will be brainwashed by his old friend Lucas to take all the good parts out of ET and ... oh, fuck .....does anyone have a bunker I could hide in?
June 29, 2002, 1:47 a.m. CST
was meant to provoke serious social themes. I do think Bernie Mac is capable of doing great drama, but the guy is one of the funniest guys on the planet. I agree that I'd love to see Meet the Parents with Bernie Mac in the Ben Stiller role. However, making a blatantly comedic remake of Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? sort of invalidates the reason it was made in the first place. It was meant to be thought provoking, and just to see a modern update that pokes fun at race relations while trying to remain poignant would not do justice to the spirit of the original film.
June 29, 2002, 2:06 a.m. CST
The problem is, modern filmmakers don't know how to convey suspense and gore without laying it all out in front of you - paint-by-numbers. In fact, most modern filmmakers don't know how to tell a story without showing you everything. Instead of making you a part of the ride, you get to sit in your seat and watch the ride. Truly, this is what sucks most about modern filmmaking. What happened to the days of Hitchcock, where they used pacing, mood and music to put you on the edge of your seat? And then, just when you think you're going to see the horrorific moment, they do something brilliant - they let you create it in your own head. And then you go to sleep with the lights on, because YOU manufactured it with your own mind. Something you don't easily escape from, because your conciousness created it. Spielberg's Jaws was an example of this. To this day, I am afraid of the ocean, and it's because of that opening sequence from Jaws. Not that I'm all about filmmakers trying to mentally disfigure people, but the horror filmmakers? Dammit, that's their job! I actually liked Thirteen Ghosts. I thought it was a pretty decent film with exceptional set design, and having Tony Shaloub on board doesn't hurt. I also liked Ghosts of Mars, but that's because it had Ice Cube in it and a nifty story idea. Both were guilty pleasures and by-the-numbers. Neither film are true horror movie. They're action movies with gore and horror imagery. There is a difference. A HUGE difference. Horror movies are supposed to make you afraid. Not just when you're watching them, but long after you've left the theater.
June 29, 2002, 2:30 a.m. CST
by Cash Bailey
Christ, that script rocks!!!
June 29, 2002, 3:07 a.m. CST
In order for horror to work it needs to affect us psychologically. Jaws is a great example, but the Exorcist is another. Yes we saw little Linda Blair puke green bile, and all that...but a remake today would have the devil manifest itself in full-on CGI...oh the horror!!
June 29, 2002, 9:26 a.m. CST
He'll remake anything to get more money. Next thing you know, he'll be remaking Evil Dead to focus on the tragedy aspect.
June 29, 2002, 2:02 p.m. CST
Michael Bay remaking Texas Chainsaw Massacre
June 29, 2002, 3:09 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
I'm not going to say anything bad about people who don't like the classic GUESS WHOSE COMING TO DINNER. Why? People who think that it is preachy and isn't relevant are lucky! Apparently they haven't met as many racists in their life as I have. I saw the movie for the first time last year, and was very impressed. I've been a part of many of those scenes from the movie, and let me tell you, that movie's WAY relevant.
June 29, 2002, 3:12 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
The version of the rumor I heard was that it's going to be a televised version of the stage play. Many celebrities have already gotten a shot at playing parts, due to the rotating Broadway cast.
June 29, 2002, 3:23 p.m. CST
by TS Thomas
Vern, about my point. My point is Speilberg dedicating the award is no different than Bay dedicating it. Don't matter who gave it to them. I don't think Bay doing it is somehow more offensive than anyone else.
June 29, 2002, 4:04 p.m. CST
I can't believe anyone engaged in the academic study of film as medium can fail to see how brilliantly Chainsaw is constructed. It is the Citizen Kane of low budget horror movies.
June 29, 2002, 5:08 p.m. CST
So you don't like "Chainsaw". O.K., we get it. You are clearly a bastion of good taste. Now fuck off. I love the film, hate the Cell, and have an extremely cute girlfriend. So obviously you know jack shit about who TCM's fans are. People like you who force their opinions on others are the reason why this planet sucks. Go crawl back in your academically "enlightened" hole, you turd.
June 29, 2002, 5:52 p.m. CST
and for the record, I have kissed a girl. The cell is the first good movie about going inside the world of somebody's brain. you call it trash because you can't stand the thought that wierd sick creatures like Stargher(the killer on The Cell)actually exist-they do. the only bad part was J-lo(too dumb and fashionable to be a child psychologist), but she did make for a good "innocent" character wandering around inside this monster's brain. Every time I watch the Cell I notice some new detail that adds to the wierd, freudian horror of it all. exploit my ass. the Cell was miles ahead of any other horror film in the last ten years, and in the psychological thriller category is just behind SoTL and Hannibal
June 29, 2002, 6:44 p.m. CST
I doubt if Chainsaw really was as bad as McAuley attests it would still maintain its fearsome reputation. When the film was finally released in the UK three or so years ago the reviewers where largely of the opinion that it was a classic. As for its lack of a theme. Well you can argue the toss here. Some say it's about middle class fears of demented backwoods folk. Others have read it as a Vegetarian parable. Ultimately however it is a horror film. All it really has to do is scare us. Granted the best horror films do resonate on some deeper level but they don't actually need to have a subtext. As for there being better indie films made at the time if we look at horror films made independently in the same era there's no real comparison. I don't see anyone championing "Three on A Meathook." Finally, just out of curiosity what "decent elements" does Friday the 13th bring us? Please do tell?
June 29, 2002, 7:48 p.m. CST
by FD Resurrected
Texas Chainsaw Massacre is one of the best horror movies I've ever seen - right up there with The Changeling, The Shining, Halloween, Night of the Living Dead, Poltergeist, Jaws and, yes, the 1979 movie Alien. Why these movies? Reason: UNBEARABLE ABUNDANCE OF ATMOSPHERE AND SUSPENSE. Which makes you feel bone-chillingly scared, with hairs raised on the back of your neck anticipating something's about to happen and actually jumping out of your seat when unpredictable (that is, if you haven't been spoiled) surprises suddenly pop up while watching the particular horror movies. Note I didn't include Friday the 13th, or Nightmare on Elm Street or Hellraiser series because they relied on cliches and too gory to repulse rather than scare, although surrealism can be scary sometimes - especially upon small children like I was so frightened by The Shining on video when I was a kid I didn't sleep well at nights for a while. That said, the filmmaking aspect of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I saw for the first time only a couple years ago, is pretty cheap but it turns out to be an incredibly suspenseful movie and almost shook me up when (mini-spoilers) I saw the psychopath cutting flesh in the van, meat hook, hammer beat, door slamming, maniacs screaming and laughing while girl suffers mental terror at the family dining table, chase in the dark, wheelchair man gutted by a chainsaw, sick near-dead old man in heavy make-up and, of course, Leatherface waving a chainsaw around to the abrupt conclusion at the end. At the end I was stunned at the fact that TCM caused me to feel the terror and horror - the way horror movies should be made without the overreliance on stupid humor and cliches and bucketloads of gore. Toby Hooper was a great amateur filmmaker who made one of the best psychologically scariest/fearsomely suspense-horror movies ever made, and he almost destroyed the original TCM with the horribly lame sequel TCM 2. With Michael Bay re-making TCM, it is bound to suck deep and deeper at the rate of space-vaccuum intensity. This man is a first-rate hack, no question. He must be stopped before he destroys the horror genre with the utterly mindlessly stupid, substance-free, no fear-factor razzle-dazzle TCM re-make. I despise Armageddon with the fibre of my being, one of the worst Hollywood movies of the 90's decade. The 70's TCM is fine as is and should be considered a true horror classic like Frankenstein and The Mummy in the oldies era.
June 29, 2002, 7:57 p.m. CST
Bay plans to remake TCM? What the hell was the Matthew Mc-Hog-My-Knee version from about three years ago? Chopped liver? Not that I actually saw it. I had all I could stand watching TCM II for the first time recently with Dennis Hopper. Some films do not lend themselves to sequels.
June 29, 2002, 9:12 p.m. CST
when the first one was a missed opportunity -- a decent idea that wasn't carried out very well.****Two examples: the recent Insomnia, and when Hitchcock remade his own Man Who Knew Too Much.
June 29, 2002, 9:16 p.m. CST
The idea of remaking TCM doesn't bother me, and I will tell you why. For youngsters (anyone under 18) today, TCM is a joke. I bought a copy about two years ago and let my two youngest girls watch it during a pajama party with their similarly aged friends, warning them in advance TCM is probably the scariest, most intense horror film ever made, along with THE EXORCIST. My girls (14 and 11 at the time) thought it was terrible and they and their friends laughed themselves silly throughout. As for THE EXORCIST, which they got to see for the first time about a year ago, they at least respected parts of it. So the point is TCM can be remade -- with no hram done -- for a new generation. Whether Bay is the right man to handle the remake is another matter entirely. But TCM is decidely not viewed a classic by the teenagers I know, just as PSYCHO and that all-time classic, THE BLUE MONKEY, lacks any sizzle for their age group. Of course we see how the remake of PSYCHO eneded up. Let's hope for better from the TCM remake.
June 29, 2002, 10:55 p.m. CST
by Dark Knight Lite
I'm a university professor, and every year at Halloween, I have a screening of TCM for the students in my department. Here's what happens EVERY YEAR: my Wife and I laugh through the whole movie, while most of the uninitiated scream and watch the film through their fingers. Roughly 5 people leave during the torture of Sally, and last year one poor girl was escorted out of the screening in tears. I laughed some more. The whole room erupts in cheers when Hitchiker is run over by "Black Maria", and last but not least, every piece of free sausage pizza is consumed. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre is, in my Doctoral opinion, the greatest horror film ever made - if you don't get it, well, you're an idiot. PS: I love putting you little weasels down.
June 29, 2002, 10:55 p.m. CST
re: if Spielberg dedicated an oscar to dead people it's the same as Michael Bay dedicating his mtv movie award. I still disagree buddy and let me tell you why. When you give somebody an oscar for a war movie, you are awarding them for an allegedly good movie. The implication is that it is a finely crafted picture of Great Importance which says something about war or humanity or country or whatever. When you give someone an mtv movie award for "best action sequence" you are saying that they made a cool action scene. And in this case it was an action scene based on the mass deaths of real people. And there are still people alive who were there when it happened. Now this great entertainment is equated with the other winners of this award: 2001 - Motorcycle Chase, Mission: Impossible 2 2000 - The Pod Race, Starwars: Episode 1 - The Phantom Menace 1999- Asteroid Destroys New York City, Armageddon 1998 - Speedboat chase, Face/Off 1997 - Truck Drives Through Farm Equipment, Twister You know what I mean? Imagine if somebody was happy to accept "best action sequence" for a movie about the world trade center attack, or the columbine massacre, or that movie about Ted Bundy. Matthew Bright says, "I would like to share this award with Ted Bundy's victims." I mean I am no prude, and the fact that Michael Bay has set back the action genre by about 25 years through his influence certainly makes me more up in arms against this fuckin moron. But anybody with an ounce of class would not have accepted that award. I would expect the same from Ridley Scott if Blackhawk Down had won. But you know, I believe it was either Mark Twain or Fat Albert who said, "Michael Bay is like school in July - no class." thanks for your comments Thomas, Vern P.S. Newsweek one said his senior thesis film was about "frat boys driving really, really fast in a yellow Porsche."
June 29, 2002, 11:06 p.m. CST
by Dark Knight Lite
M. Bay needs to be run over by "Black Maria" for even thinking about a remake of TCM. Another poster made the comment that remakes do not diminish the power of the original, and while true for the most part, a remake of TCM will without doubt be just another dirty little sidebar to this great film. And we already have four dreadful sequels to do that.
June 29, 2002, 11:11 p.m. CST
by Dark Knight Lite
June 29, 2002, 11:23 p.m. CST
"Adam Sandler ought to be a comic sidekick in John Turturro movies, not the other way around!" - The Washington Post Here's a link to the whole review:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/style/movies/reviews/A58770-2002Jun27.html
June 30, 2002, 5:02 a.m. CST
BOLLOCKS people. If you think it's rare to see blacks portrayed as racist in Hollywood films you've been sitting in the wrong theaters. To name an example I just rented two days ago: LIBERTY HEIGHTS, which depicts a black father acting JUST the way you're suggesting Bernie Mac should be cast. And for the guy who claimed blacks never play villains in Hollywood, there is a jive talkin racist thug included just for you, who certainly represents the 'villain' of the piece if anyone does. I could name plenty more examples, but you get my point I hope.
June 30, 2002, 5:06 a.m. CST
The original GWCTD isn't a sacred cow, it's a sitting duck. ALL the critics take shots at it, whether justified I don't know as I never saw it, but I have read the reviews.
June 30, 2002, 9:44 a.m. CST
I have no problem with a celebrity Rocky Horror on FOX as long as they go back to the Rocky Horror Show and aren't trying to re-make shot for shot the movie. And for goodness sakes, yes! Cast Tony Head! Preferably as Frank (the arrangement of his version differed from from the movie considerably, but I got all tingly listening to it....), but I don't know if the casting morons would go for it, even though Giles has gotten much less tweedy. He can still do it!!!!!
June 30, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST
by Wyrdy the Gerbil
if they make a crappy remake of TCM or GWCTD. it only fucking matters if YOU want them to do a remake(what ever the film) if you have no interest in the film being remade it can be as the worst piece of shit ever made because it just wont matter to you,however if they do it to a film you`ve been waiting for someone to redo for ages thats when it means something...FUCK THEM ALL
June 30, 2002, 1:22 p.m. CST
I dunno whether I should be happy or whether I should go out and kill a kitten or something..Why are they remaking RHPS? Why!? It could be really good( Jack Black would make an excellent Eddie but Britney as Janet would make me boycott the movie), or it could suck BIG TIME. I mean, what if it's another Scooby Doo? ( the toon sucked in the 1st place in my opinion. Now I must tear off my clothes and cry to the heavens...
June 30, 2002, 1:47 p.m. CST
You know this is the biggest bunch of bullshit Ive heard...WHAT IS WITH HOLLYWOOD??? Is there not an original idea out there??? Why are we subjected to watchin these movie companies take classics and ruin them??? Dawn of the Dead,The Warriors,TCM,so on and so on and so on...ENOUGH ALREADY!!!!!!! Now granted It wouldnt surprise me that FOX would try to do something with the RHPS but come on...Bring the originals back...let them do it or something just for gags...but throwing some Britney Spears type in there doing Janet or something wacked like that???? ARRRGGGGG!!! scuse me while I barf now....
June 30, 2002, 4:35 p.m. CST
The issue for me with a remake of GWCTD is that the original was made in 1967 under the old Hollywood guard, and was hopelessly out of date when it was released. I was 17 at the time, as was half the nation, and films for my age group were being turned out in huge numbers by 1967. GWCTD was not made for us; it was made for our parents' generation. Doesn't matter whether it was good or not. It wasn't relevant at the time, except maybe to people over 40 or 50, the WWII generation. So who cares? Old guard films disappeared all together by the end of the 1960s. Thank God. Movies need to be relevant. There was no point in making A DATE WITH JUDY or ANDY HARDY RETURNS in 1968, which was by the way the year I got married and started college -- like half the nation at the time.
June 30, 2002, 11 p.m. CST
"Guess Who Is Coming To Dinner" is an EXCELLENT movie. It is VERY good and I have watched it recently and it is powerful and touching and although some aspects of the social world have changed since it was made, the film holds up well. Bernie Mac? Hell yes I am going to yell. AGRUGHGHGHGHGH GHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHHGHG!!! (That was the edited version of my yell. The real one was a LOT longer)........................................Valid awards or not, the film is good on its own merits.
July 1, 2002, 7:13 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
You would prefer 'The Texas Chainsaw massacre' be re-made a full blown horror movie instead of a scary thriller? look at it this way. Blood and gore + Michael Bay + big hollywood budget = CGI. Lots and lots of CGI. Now, Scary Thriller + Michael bay + Big Hollywood budget = Potentially one of the creepiest True stories of American history. It was a true story right? Right??
July 1, 2002, 7:38 a.m. CST
... someone mentiones The Cell. And it's always a negative mention. I'd just like to thank Astaldo for being brave enough to defend The Cell, because it seems as if the evil powers that rule AICN have somehow managed to obliterate the people who love it from their website - at least, they're not as vocal as they were at the time of its release. Now, The Cell is a brilliant, beautiful, clever, well-written, well-acted masterpiece. That it's been shot as if it were a moving painting makes it only better. I dare anyone to find a more breathtakingly, amazingly perfect opening sequence than the one in The Cell. The colors, editing, music, cinematography... all perfect!
July 1, 2002, 9:39 a.m. CST
I think it would be hilarious to see Bernie Mac going nuts over his daughter going out with a "white boy", then his transition from disliking him to liking him at the end of the flick. Yeah, interracial dating and marriage is more accepted nowadays, but there are still quite a few people who definitely have massive problems with it(case in point, my ex-girlfriend's Korean parents who weren't too crazy about her dating me, the average black guy). There are people in this generation that still have ignorance embedded within tbem, and some issues are still needing to be dealt with, as the surprisingly funny Undercover Brother pointed out.
July 1, 2002, 11:20 a.m. CST
by nick carraway
Bay's actually an accomplished director and I don't understand the hate he receives from critics and talkbacks. I mean its 2002 and MTV's been around for TWENTY ONE YEARS. It's affected cinema in a progressive way. Many critics want everything to harken back to MELVIN & HOWARD, FIVE EASY PIECES, ANNIE HALL & SCORCESE. I'll take MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, LAST PICTURE SHOW & PHIL SILVER/KURT RUSSELL Disney pics over such dull seventies fare Why does BAY get constantly bashed? His personality? Here's a list of really MUNDANE, UNINSPIRED, TIRED, LAZY TV STYLE directors who continue to work and rarely get shatted on by you guys & critics. Chris Columbus Andrew Davis Gary Fleder Amy Heckerling Frank Coraci Howie Deutch Adam Rifkin Brian Levant Mick Jackson Jonathan Lynn Gregory Hoblit Jessie Nelson John Turtletaub Ron Howard Penny Marshall Martin Brest Larry Clark Ed Zwick Raja Gosnell Peter Hyams Joseph Ruben Ron Underwood
July 1, 2002, 7:11 p.m. CST
I noticed THE CELL has come up in this and other talkbacks. It is certainly a visually stunning movie, and the killer is scary as hell. But J-LO cannot act, and her time on screen hurts the movie. And she's the lead! Thus, THE CELL is a bust, for better or worse. EVENT HORIZON suffered from a similar fate: interesting visuals, scary premise, but shot to hell by Sam Neil's piss-poor perfomance -- plus an ending that doesn't hold up. There is no defending these two movies.
July 1, 2002, 7:25 p.m. CST
The mystery of our time... beyond the cosmos or osama's cave... why, dear god, can a unfunny hack like this get people to come to these movies????!!!!!!??? Can there be this many brain-dead teens? He's just gross, ugly, loud. and those are this better traits
July 1, 2002, 11:29 p.m. CST
GWCTD is a movie that thinks its being brave by tackling such a serious issue, but in reality the movie has no balls. What is the big moral dilema facing Spencer Tracy? A white liberal is faced with a perfect man who wants to marry his wife. Oh the horror! As another poster noted, Sidney P.'s character is almost comical in his flawlessness. Why didnt the writers just put a halo on his head? So Spencer spends the whole movie wringing his hands about this big problem he's facing, when he finally embraces his liberal ideals and accepts Sidney into the family. So what! Are we supposed to think this is some brave act? A better plot would have been to make Spencer's character more of a racist, like the sherrif in Heat of the Night-Steiger, not OConnor. Then the conversion of Spencer would have been more authentic and meaningful- because he really undergoes a change. And another mistake is how at the very end, only the black father is left opposing the marriage! Well let's hope good Spencer and Kate can show this ignorant man the error of his ways. The genius of TCM was in the movie's marketing. It created a buzz not unlike the first Blair Witch. The film fancied itself as based on a true story and that made it even more terrifying to people. It was also original in that it killed people who were until then, and still are, off-limits. Usually kids, retards, and cripples do not get killed in a movie. Its usually not the most vulnerable who get slaughtered. But TCM threw that convention out the window with that guy in the wheelchair. And for that, I give it some props.
July 2, 2002, 4:24 a.m. CST
Well you know what buddy I'll answer your question. Those directors you listed, with the exception of the great pervert auteur Larry Clark and, arguably, Adam Rifkin, are pretty much hacks without a recognizable style of their own. I mean I guess you can see why the same fuckin moron that did "the grinch" would also do "a beautiful mind" and a bunch of movies about astronauts and firemen. But most of those directors you could throw their filmographies in a hat and mix em up and nobody would be the wiser. So it's hard to get mad about them when you don't even know which movies they did. Michael Bay, on the other hand, DOES have a recognizable style (of course you could argue that it's Jerry Bruckheimer's style, since alot of individuals understandably think Michael Bay directed CON AIR. But let's set that aside). Anyway it's a style that's been real influential. Once Michael Bay made $200 million with a movie where nobody over the age of 14 could follow any of the action scenes, that meant it was okay for everybody else. Come on in boys, have a piece. Since most film lovers hate Michael Bay's style, which I would sum up as "alot of misty light glimmering over the deliberate rape and mutilation of 100 years of cinematic language", it is disappointing to see other directors following in his footsteps. To us, Michael Bay and Michael Bay style movies are a headache inducing jumble of randomly assembled closeups of various military machinery and sweaty, over qualified writer-actors (Ben Affleck, Owen Wilson, Billy Bob Thornton) who almost seem to have "I am only doing this for the money" written on their sleeveless undershirts. The movies are obviously stylish, but a style that to many of us is obnoxious and even literally painful when sitting anywhere besides the back two or three rows of a theater. And when you take away that style you get jingoistic, unimaginative and, as the kids would say, completely fuckin retarded moron
July 2, 2002, 2:28 p.m. CST
by Neil MacAuley
SERIOUSLY, pi, and other defenders of this film -- I'm even more adamant about this being trash than Texas Chainsaw. Becaues it had a good budget and decent talent but yet was completely misguided from the getgo. Ideally I'd want to go back through the film but to do that would be so angering I can't even describe it, so here's my take on its major faults, off the top of my head, which derail the whole damn thing from the getgo: **The premise falls apart in the second half of the film, especially the ending. It just doesn't make sense, logic goes out the window. Because they never b bother to clearly explain the RULES of the dreamstate. In fact, there are no rules, so the story loses focus and merely goes wherever the director wants it to go; again, in the name of STYLE. By the time Jennifer Lopez is killing him with the sword I have so many unanswered questions it's mind-numbing. Questions the filmmakers didn't bother to address, because, guess what, STYLE was more important than story. The whole idea of "killing" someone in the dream state is not clear at all -- what exactly is this achieving and why is Lopez, someone whose entire GOAL and main motivation of character is anti-violence (e.g. to save the abused children) resorting to violence in the end?!! It makes no sense in terms of character motivation and story (like the one scene of child abuse that's supposed to explain the killer's whole dementia and incredibly ornate mental fantasy world. And I'm sure a country hick like this boy has hundreds of progressive works of cross-cultural art in his mind, down to the nth detail, right?! Jeez.). **Vince Vaughn actually finds the kidnapped girl in the end, not Lopez, which just doesn't work at all because we never invest any emotion in him and the subtle sexual thing between him and Lopez goes nowhere and is completely limp. And the whole attempted murder of this innocent girl by drowning is sick and exploitative as it's drawn out. Overall... **The content with the kidnapped girl is absolutely disgusting and atrocious and unnecessary. Yet another grisly sexual serial killer in a movie for exploitative reasons *only*, wherein the moraity of the situation is never called into question. In The Silence of the Lambs Clarice questions Lecter's motivations, his sickness, and we feel real emotion for the victims of Buffalo Bob (not the Senator's daughter but Fredericka Bimmel and others we hear about). Not here. It's just irresponsible bullshit; not just morally but in terms of story and filmmaking; it's lacking theme and credibility and focus. **The performances: way over the top and it's OBVIOUS as hell that Lopez and especially Vince Vaughn are WALKING THROUGH this movie. Paycheck time. Vaughn must have been taking time off from rehab to shoot this, he's never looked worse. And again, his sallow eyes, unshaven beard, and frumpy appearance is NEVER ADDRESSED. Because the director doesn't understand this is a story about people, he just wants to find opportunities to put in his cool shots. **When we cut to the dream sequences, THE STORY STOPS. Dead halt. They are not CRUCIAL and they rarely advance the story. That's just bad writing and bad filmmaking. **The art: If it were actually a good film, I'd see the insertion of other artist's work in the film as an homage. But since the film is shit, it just amounts to stealing. The idiots on this board who don't understand film seem to think that just because something is remotely clever or new it's automatically "cool." But it has to actually WORK in the film. It's like if your song was sampled by Dr. Dre into a really great hip-hop song, you'd be cool with that. But if Vanilla Ice sampled it and didn't bother to do anything new with it, you'd be pissed. The very idea of sampling doesn't make something automatically "cool," just like here Tarsem's "sampling" of art in his film isn't used logically or to dramatic impact so it fails. I'm not going to lie; sure there were some striking images in the film, visually stunning at times. But most of the time I'm sitting there going "Why?" and it pulled me out of the movie. Make sense? Maybe if you studied story and film more, it would. And I know Ebert loved the film -- but Ebert loves anything that breaks new ground because his life is seeing 10 bad movies a week. And remember, he had "Babe: pig in the city" and "Dark City" as number ones in their years just as he picked "The Cell" number one in its year. So he ain't the most reliable there. Ultimately, Tarsem can't hold the jock of the artists he's ripping off and I bet they're embarassed to be associated with the film. I saw the exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum with the sectioned cow -- the thought of Tarsem standing where I was, looking at that exhibit and saying "I'm going to put that in my movie because it's cool," irregardless of logic, motivation, theme, or story, pisses me off to no end. I think I've said enough.
July 2, 2002, 8:41 p.m. CST
I can see why your name is package, since its seems that is what you think with. I don't know about the big part..Anywho, heres a link on RHPS http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-07/01/09.30.tv
July 2, 2002, 8:53 p.m. CST
I can see why your name is package, since its seems that is what you think with. I don't know about the big part..Anywho, heres a link on RHPS http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/art-main.html?2002-07/01/09.30.tv
July 3, 2002, 7:45 a.m. CST
... what a passionate response. I think this can all be summoned up by paraphrasing the controversial Mr. Roger Ebert: "It's the masterpieces that generate passionate responses, good and bad." I think The Cell is a masterpiece for some of the reasons you hate it. I do agree that Vince Vaughn was completely sleepwalking through the film, but I really did like J-Lo, as she suprised the hell out of me. However, I do find it a bit unfair that you start mentioning that the girl in the water-filling cell was exploitative and sick as there are many masterpieces of cinema that are just as obnoxious in their unapologetic cruelty toward people; Look at Dario Argento's films, or indeed any italian horror film from the 70s or 80s: the murders committed in these films are not only extremely brutal and sometimes unwatchable, but they also elevate the film for fans of the genre; the bloodier the killing the better. I'm not saying that that's your opinion, I'm just saying that cruelty and sickness in horror films have always existed and calling one film exploitative because it makes you sick is just wrong. You should feel sick - that's the point! As for the style-over-substance debate ... we're never going to agree on that. What you see as pointless style that makes no sense, I see as poetic filmmaking. I see beautiful and grosesque imagery combined in a perfect cocktail. When you say that a trailer-trash kid couldn't have a dream-world so "arty", that makes me mad. Not because I disagree, but because it means you weren't paying attention to the film. When Catherine goes into Stargher's mind, she's not only seeing his mind, she also brings her own imagery. You have to remember that they're on drugs and trapped inside dreams. I really don't care how or where Tarsem got his imagery. The only thing I recognized was the sliced-up-horse. It made no difference for me. I was completely entranced. I loved the leisurly pace of the film, it's warped logic (why does everything have to be logical? We Europeans aren't nearly as offended by the illogical as you are! I mean, David Lynch's films are often illogical, and yet that's why people love him!) and it's combination of style AND substance. I've seen many films that were beautiful to look at but painful to sit through, but I do not count The Cell as one of them. Something about it touched a nerve, made me love it instantly. I can't describe it, and I'm getting pretty tired of defending it, so I hope you'll at least acknowledge that there are people that do adore it, and so it can't be all that bad.
July 3, 2002, 2:44 p.m. CST
Does anyone else think Bill Cosby is a self-righteous jackass? If I ever needed proof, I only needed to wait for his little ignorant and asinine attack on Ozzie Osbourne. I'm not the biggest Ozzie fan, although I do like much of his earlier work, but leave the poor guy alone. He barely makes it through from day to day on his own. He definately doesn't need a has-been comic with a god complex spouting the words of a hypocritical society when his back is turned. And all this shit the dumbass talks, about what's right and what's not right, while at the same time mock-conducting a jazz band (stupid faces and all) at a live show hosted by the "Playboy" mansion. Hey, Coz, you know god points his finger at your sorry ass too. *** Oh, and some of you guys are funny... Defending Michael Bay the way that you do. I think the reason Michael Bay gets so much criticism is... Well... The man's not a very good film director. Sure, he can direct the shit out of an action scene. But, unfortunately for him, directing pictures is more than just editing together some nifty little action scenes. I think some people are bothered by the inordinate amount of success he's received off of just being able to put to piece together explosion sequences. Many feel that he is overrated because he doesn't direct whole films... He tends to skimp or just glaze over the meat and potatoes of serious films. That's where the whole soulless thing comes in. Take Pearl Harbor for example, since it seems everyone else is... Sure, the film makes for pretty sleek packaging on the outside. But, the thing is, why would you buy it if there is nothing in the packaging itself? Michael Bay will always be in his best element directing the likes of Keanu Reeves and Kevin Costner. These guys will never be in performance driven pictures. Michael Bay will never direct a performance driven picture. Bay started out making videos and commercials. He's never put together a complete narrative. He doesn't understand the components of good story writing. He doesn't understand actor motivation and how it relates to character development. He's one of those guys that only looks at the pictures. His movies, more than likely, will always be one-dimensional. But hey, some people don't mind one-dimensional pictures... All they want is gun fights and explosions. They could give a rats ass for what falls in between. If that's you, more power to you. But understand also that there are those out there who will resent Bay for this. And it's easier to bitch at the one man who creates the product than it is to bitch at all those in the general public who support the product.
July 3, 2002, 3:53 p.m. CST
by nick carraway
Appreciate the response. And I don't find his "style" offensive. I DESPIES AMERICAN TV style direction which essentially is "talking heads, now we're in a room filmmaking". If you want amazing stories. READ. Just finished GREG BEAR's "Darwin's Radio" & some early stuff and man can this guy tell one. I image you are well read as your response indicates. Plus, I frequently see your name and link it with Masswurm, Alexandra Dupont, Quint, & Morie-Arty who have well adept writing skills. But I fail to see what's so irritating about Bay's editing/action sequences. Seen Lethal Weapon 3,4, & 5? Jan De Bont? Jurassic Park 3? Shite. It's 2002 and how long can you sit through Peter Greenway? You have to admit, "The Rock" & "Armageddon" are exciting, fun movies. Ed Harris suppot of Desert Storm veterans is effective as is the shot of the brace on BillyBob's leg. Mimi Leder of "Deep Impact" which would have had a talking head saying "the mission control officer can't go because he's handicapped." Some of it's flaws I'll admit, are the embarrassing animal crackers, newly ruined JFK posters. Sure, Bay he rips off Fincher, they use to work together, but Tarsem gets away with murder,and his considered an artist. I've seen the first half of Armageddon a dozen times and find it so incredibly visceral. Think Thai Tandoori Pizza from California Pizza Kitchen & a Hagaan Das vanilla shake from Hard Rock Cafe and tear drop bottle of Evian. I take that over a "Royale with Cheese" anyotherday. Don't have enough time here, but if Bay's films had flopped, nobody would be hating him. Curious to hear some of your movie pix & guilty pleasures.
- Check Out Spidey and Electro in the First Clip from THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2! -- 136 total posts 136 posts
- ‘Nobody’s Interested In Your Texts!!’ President Barack Obama Takes On Zach Galifianakis BETWEEN TWO FERNS!! -- 169 total posts 134 posts
- Is one of these guys ready to play Dr. Victor Von Doom in Josh Trank's FANTASTIC FOUR?! -- 255 total posts 124 posts
- Quint has seen Gareth Edwards and Legendary's Godzilla presentation at SXSW! Full on Kaiju badassery! -- 76 total posts 76 posts
- SXSW 2014: Nordling Reviews THE RAID 2: BERANDAL! -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- A New Scene From THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2!! -- 48 total posts 48 posts
- Jason Sudeikis to star as the Laker lovin', disguise wearin' Irwin "Fletch" Fletcher in FLETCH WON! -- 114 total posts 42 posts
- The Rock ‘Em, Sock ‘Em Badassity Of TITANFALL Is Now Upon Us!! -- 84 total posts 25 posts
- See The Flash's Full Costume For The New CW Show!! -- 90 total posts 24 posts
- New Clip from CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER! -- 97 total posts 21 posts