Who should be the Riddler?

IMPORT-

So they don't even have a director or a script for the next installment of the Batman series, but rumors have already been buzzing for a while. The two villains on the radar are the Penguin, and the Riddler. Thus far the Riddler seems to be gaining the most traction, and the actor who has been getting the most buzz is Johnny Depp. That rumor has regained momentum with the release of PUBLIC ENEMIES, which co-stars Depp and Batman himself, Christian Bale. But is it the right choice? Could there be someone more interesting? Yes, and yes.

Johnny Depp is great, and he could certainly bring something great to the Riddler, but he may be a little to Johnny Deppy. It happens when you put any huge star into a movie, that you really only see that star. For example, basically any Tom Cruise movie, no matter what the character is named it's still Tom Cruise. And I think this is one thing the the Nolan helmed Batman movies have done is not go for the huge star names for the roles. Bale as Batman, Murphy as the Scarecrow, Eckhart as Two Face, and Ledger as the Joker. Now I'm not saying these actors are not stars, but are fantastic actors who are 100% believable in the parts that they are cast in. You forget about them as celebrities, and I'm just not sure that Depp is in that category. It would be hard to forget that it's Johnny Depp in a Batman movie.

I recently watched REVOLUTIONARY ROAD, which was fantastic even though depressing, and there was a actor in there who I think would be fantastic as the Riddler. You may recognize his face from other movies, or even from the stage as he is a ensemble member of the Red Orchid Theatre here in Chicago. But in the RR movie he played such a oddly controlled maniac, and has the ability to seem normal one second, and totally loose it the next. The actors name is Michael Shannon. So there you go Nolan, Michael Shannon as the Riddler, your welcome. In return I'll just be happy with a speaking role on  the new film. One that would require a weeks work.

Pink Panther 2

IMPORT-

The Pink Panther series has been something that for years has been remade, remixed, and many times ruined. Son of the Pink Panther anyone? But it seems that today's response to remakes is to say, 'why would they do that?' or 'just leave it be.' I agree when the case is The Karate Kid, which is set to be remade with Will Smith's son. However in the case of the Pink Panther, I disagree. First and foremost is that the first actual Pink Panther was not that good. Besides the brilliant Closeau creation by Peter Sellers it was rather boring. Secondly the original run of Panther movies had six in total, and they varied in style and definitely in quality. By the end it just was a chance to see Sellers dress in different costumes and make funny voices. It was that style that they seemed to be inspired by when doing the Steve Martin Pink Panther movies.

Even if this new Panther movies were done exceptionally well I'm not sure that they would catch on. That particular style of comedy is not really on the radar at the moment. Physical humor, and one with almost sketch like characters have taken a back seat in the present Apatow reality based comedies. However we can't really argue this point because these new Panther movies are not that good. They seem to be a bit more worried that they are kid friendly, and will do well in foreign markets. (see big international star names)

This movie does suffer from a ridiculously boring, and easily figured out script. Also it is jam packed with 'stars'. I would really enjoy just seeing Steve Martin and John Cleese go at it. Those two were the two most consistently funny characters in the movie. The business with the assistant is boring, but Jean Reno is a well placed character. I would watch this is you are a fan of the old ones, and a Steve Martin fan. It would really be nice to see them shake the gloss, and the overly pg rating to make a good detective movie with Martin's Closeau at the center. Or even them to go comedic like in the REVENGE OF THE PINK PANTHER where Dreyfuss, in this played by Cleese, gets out of the pysch ward and tries to kill Closeau.

In the end are these remakes needed? No. But it would be hard to find any comedian who doesn't want to do this character or something like it because it is such a joy. I usually get caught up in it for a day or so afterwards. And it would be hard to find any viewer who wouldn't want to watch. So I guess the question should be, 'If we could make some good Panther movies should we do it? The answer to that is yes. So there you have it MGM studios, go make a good one. And for the record I think 'A Shot in the Dark' is the best Panther movie of them all.

Year One.

IMPORT-

Went to my pre-noon show this morning and checked out YEAR ONE, the new Harold Ramis movie. I say it's the new Harold Ramis movie because that seemed to be the lock behind this film being a solid one. That however, did not work out. 

There were parts of this movie that were funny, parts. It also had some great cameos from Hank Azaria, Oliver Platt, and David Cross. And big ups for David Pasquesi for being able to make his appearance in two scenes memorable and coming up with something to do. I can't say the same for Jack Black. He's just Jack Black, bombastic energy combined with being loud, and an abundance of facial expressions. I'm starting to think he may not be suited to be the lead in many of these movies because after a while he just seems to get a bit annoying. Michael Cera plays Michael Cera in this as he has in everything else he has been in. Not to say that it wasn't funny, but not enough to keep interest for 90 mins. Two movies of the past come to mind when thinking of this movie, Mel Brooks' History of the World and Python's Holy Grail. Holy Grail did two things great, first off it was a great satire of the times and religion, and the other was it was just hilarious on top of it all. History of the World was much like Year One. Just a bunch of bits strung together almost like sketches with no overall story to speak of. Many movies have gotten away with such things, but they were also much funnier than this. Year One seemed to rely on dick jokes much more. I have nothing against dick jokes, but they are much better as extra jokes than the sole joke in a scene. 

So I can't recommend seeing this in the theatres, and can only give a maybe to renting it. Go see the HANGOVER instead, and make sure you rent I LOVE YOU MAN first.

The Taking of Pelham 123

IMPORT-

I was really ready for this movie to be not so good, and was actually supposed to be seeing something else instead (Away We Go). I wanted it to be bad so I could say, "I saw the Taking of Pelham 123 this afternoon and they should of called it, The Taking of $18.50."  But THE TAKING OF PELHAM 123 was very well done, and entertaining, something not done so much these days.

I was skeptical because there was no buzz on this movie good or bad, John Travolta often picks odd movies, and Tony Scott the director is less than reliable with his 'Tony Scott style.'  Knocking those worries out of the way was a reliable Denzel Washington, good script by Brian Heglegand (LA Confidential, Mystic River), and a solid, brisk, and tense hostage movie. John Travolta does a nice job making his character real, and still having fun being the baddie like he did in Face/Off. Many movies often also suffer when the main two characters are basically doing scenes not in the same place, think BODY OF LIES, however this only builds when these two men are talking to each other and rises until they actually meet. Also benefiting Pelham is the psychology of all of the characters from the Mayor of NYC, to Washington and Travolta's characters. It makes it so much better for a high speed, hijack, hostage movie to have more meat behind it like this does. The tension works and so does the backstory for the characters. A theme of taking, and greed floats around in this movie, and works the best in the end where Washington's character on the road to personal redemption says no to a simple ride in the mayors car as a sign to no longer take.

I have a hard time saying too much bad about this movie. Tony Scott's hyper style in transitions removes a bit from the reality of this story. However the action, and the progression of the story never goes over the top. Same for the acting, especially Washington who has this amazing ability to play it so honest while selecting perfect moments to have major character revelations in his choices. 

It's hard not to suffer from post movie high. Yes, it's a thing. That high you get after you walk out seeing a new big movie on the big screen which clouds your judgement of what you just saw because you are bedazzled by the spectacle. I think I may have suffered it oh so slightly after seeing Terminator Salvation. But in the case of PELHAM 123 I'm trying really hard to make sure it's not a high when I say this is the fourth movie of the summer season you should see. (STAR TREK, UP, THE HANGOVER, and TAKING OF PELHAM 123)

The International

IMPORT

I watched the recently released on dvd, THE INTERNATIONAL. I'm still not sure how to start these. Should I start with the good? Or maybe the bad? Should it depend on the movie, and how good it is? 

Well that didn't help at all. Maybe I should just say what I thought right of the bat. That sounds alright. This movie has a murky plot and antagonist making the interesting idea bland and confusing at best. Naomi Watts is absolutely unneeded, and a bore to watch. However, this C movie may be worth watching just for the 10 minute or so Guggenheim shoot em up scene. This relatively new director does a good job with tense moments, action, and beautiful scenery. Clive Owen also does a serviceable job as he does in most of his films. Again, why is Naomi Watts even in this?

I'm a big supporter of these tense thriller, conspiracy movies. Or 'adult' movies that Hollywood likes to call them. Michael Clayton (one of my all time favs), and State of Play are recent examples. They don't make enough of them in my opinion, they are too busy with shitty horror movies as well as cheer leading comedies. Not helping is the fact that many of these movies are not doing well at the box office, but their meager budgets can easily be overcome via dvd. The International doesn't benefit for either. I would say skip it, but the Guggenheim scene is quite good. All in all this two hour movie feels like 3 hours.

EXPORT-

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/43e8b237f2/sasquatch-shorts-presents-baby-miracle

WHILE THERE, CHECK OUT 'MAXIMUM FITNESS GYM'

ITS NEEDS 10 MORE VIEWS TO REACH 4,000!

The Reader.

IMPORT-

I finally saw the Oscar nominated and winning film, THE READER. Kate Winslet won for best supporting actress this past February for her portrayal of Hannah the illiterate Nazi. Sounds like a sitcom character, the illiterate Nazi. I guess Winslet deserved to win?  She is a great actress and I guess if you put her in a awards type movie, time period, nazi WW2, and aging throughout she is bound to get a nom. This coming just after she made fun of this exact type of role in Ricky Gervais' EXTRAS series. (which if you haven't, you must check out.)

The movie starts out with the two main characters Hannah, and Michael missing a lot of clothes and getting it on, and then moves about the later half of the 20th century following Ralph Fiennes' Michael character while he deals with seeing Hannah tried to life in prison, knowing how she could have been partly absolved, and then sending her tapes of books he used to read during their affair. They eventually meet at the end of her sentence as his character has decided to help her adjust to life outside of prison.

None of this movie was jarring and took you from the story, so in that aspect it was fine. The only thing somewhat unbelievable was Hannah saying she couldn't read or write which would have gotten her 4 years in prison versus life. But one of the resonating themes of this movie was how we tend to keep things inside. Hannah did so, as did Michael. Much of the movie didn't really fit together. It really didn't let the character of Hannah go into what she did. Which would seem to be a somewhat powerful thing. Again she kept it inside of her. I think not being clear to what it was saying made this somewhat emotionally detaching when watching it. The ending seemed to say, as Michael opened up to his daughter about his life, to open up to those close to you. Which comes up rather suddenly in the end and not really a clear theme throughout. Overall it just seems mixed up, and I'm not sure what to take from this movie. It seems to just tell this amazing story and also try to say something, but I can't see what exactly.

The success of this movie in the Oscar season I think seems to be the typical subject matter that the Oscars eat up, and some good PR from the Miramax company. This is not a bad movie, but unless you really like to see the Oscar nominated pictures I would skip it. Your not missing too much, and Winslet has had better roles in the past, and will again in the future. Not the first time a actor or actress has won a Oscar when the committee realized they should have given to the person in the past.

The Hangover

IMPORT-

The HANGOVER from director Todd Phillips (ROAD TRIP,OLD SCHOOL) has a huge buzz following it. Is it worthy of the buzz, and what looks to be a huge opening weekend? Yes, and no, but mostly yes.

The Hangover has plenty of laughs throughout and benefits from its Tarintino esque the beginning is the end set-up. Four guys find themselves piecing together a night of madness piece by piece to find their lost buddy Doug.  Much of the laughs hover around such things as a found baby, tiger, and Mike Tyson. Ed Helms does a find job, but it's hard to not feel that much of this movie was stolen by Zach Galifinakis. Who for the last ten years has been a much under appreciated stand up comic. Check out you tube, or his dvd live from the Purple Onion. I assure you it will not disappoint. Galifinakis was cast in the token dumb man role, but he took it from the Jack Black type character that it was on paper and made him something much more. Much of his lines seemed ad libbed, and much of the dumb behavior is played so serious and straight which makes it heightened from the over the top direction most would take it. 

This movie will make you laugh enough to forget the many issues with the story and character. The only character with any true arc is the Ed Helms character, and as enjoyable as that was to see you wonder why they didn't do it with the other characters. Especially Bradley Cooper's who has to throw in quickly that he is a teacher, married, and has a kid. That info having nothing to do with anything really besides that they felt they needed it in there. That's really all I can say poorly about The Hangover. Some many not like the crude humor, but I was surprised to see a older crowd at the show that I saw.

This is the first go see comedy of the year. It's not a masterpiece, but it is great to see a undeniable funny movie bring a lot of people out to laugh. Hopefully Zach Galifinakis gets some roles now that suit him well, and he can become someone we see quite often. Go see it.

EXPORT-

New SASQUATCH SHORT posted!!

FunnyorDie.com

search: SASQUATCH SHORTS and watch BABY MIRACLE.