Not entirely sure what to make of this. At this point it’s just a guy thinking out loud. However, when the person is The Dude, I sit up and take notice. According to Bridges, the idea for a sequel to Tron will probably be pitched to him “pretty soon.” Through an interview with Collider, Bridges had this to say:

“But the reasons to do [Tron 2] and the reason I did that one (The original Tron) was because it was so innovative and I understand that they’ve got a whole new batch of stuff like that… innovations that they want to use on this so that could be kind of fun.”

     Now, I actually own the original Tron on DVD. I bought it with excitement of reliving a speck from my childhood. Lightcycles! Needless to say, I was severely let down. The film does NOT hold up very well when sifted through the hands of time. It is appears fairly low budget and borders on atrocious. Still, at the time, it was extremely innovative and a really great idea for its storyline - remarkably ahead of its time for 1982.

     So a sequel with today’s technology could be spectacular visually and there are infinite amounts of possibilities for a story what with the internet and hackers, wireless networks and viruses.

     As long as they bring back all the originals (Flynn, Tron and of course the infamous MCP) I think if ever a story was ready for a sequel, Tron is it. What do you think? Is Tron 2.0 a good idea and was the first one as good or bad as you remember it being?

     Buffy started as a fairly campy, albeit loved, film of the early 90s starring Kristy Swanson and Luke Perry. I remember the movie being pretty bad, though I haven’t seen it in ages. When a television spin-off was announced, I thought to myself, “seriously!? There were enough people who cared about that movie and it had enough of a story to base an entire series on?” Of course, this was before I knew who Joss (NOT Josh) Whedon was and what his brilliance is capable of.

     I never checked out the show until about halfway through the second season. Then I caught another episode by chance. From there on out I was hooked. It’s campy, corny, bubblegummy and teenie bopper-ish… but it worked; and it worked well (nominated for Emmy’s and Golden Globes and countless other awards). The dialogue is just hip enough, the girls (mmm Charisma Carpenter) were hot enough, the characters were deep enough and the storyline was solid enough to get people really involved in the show and even become obsessive about it. Joss Whedon and Sarah Michelle Gellar breathed life into a character that I would’ve sworn would be unwatchable.

     So the show lasted for 7 terrific seasons with FANTASTIC characters coming and leaving throughout and ended when it needed to and on a high note. So now the question is, should there be a feature film? Bloody Disgusting caught up with SMG and asked her what her thoughts would be on reprising the role of Buffy Summers:

“I have to be honest. That thought really scares me. Buffy was a movie and it didn’t work because her story was longer than that.”, Gellar said. “This was about a girl that you had to get to know and it took so long to figure out how to crack the ending so that people weren’t upset. Of course I never say never, so I’m not saying no, but my fear would be to open something like that up again, to only end it again.

“Like Sex in the City is such a great ending, so I’m curious to see now how they’re going to open it up and how to shut it for us again. I feel like a show you love ends, you have like a mourning period, so do you open yourself up to that again, to wanting it but knowing it’s going to end? That whole thing worries me a little bit.”

     For me? YES! I don’t care if it’s going to end. I would love to see Buffy back for another round of slaying action. If there’s a thirst for something out there (which I’m sure there is where Buffy is concerned) and cast and crew are interested, I say bring it back. Why does it have to be “shut off” again? Her “Sex and the City” reference is a perfect example. I think “X-Files” or even “Star Trek” are two other examples of franchises that work; even if they are “opened and closed” several times.

     And I’m sorry, but you get Whedon behind this project as a writer and hire a good director, I’m sure Gellar’s fears would be put on the back burner in favor of some great exposure and a hefty paycheck. As would the rest of the cast I’m sure (Eliza Dushku, James Marsters, Allison Hannigan, Seth Green… the list is nearly endless). I just about guarantee a sell out at theaters across the country on opening night should this ever be brought to fruition. I know I’d be there.

     Now this is something I did not see coming in a million years. The great Jack Nicholson, who we all remember played The Joker in Batman ‘89, has told MTV News that he is “furious” about Heath Ledger playing The Joker in The Dark Knight. Here is some of what he said:

MTV - What do you think of another actor, Heath Ledger, playing The Joker in next summer’s “The Dark Knight”?

Nicholson - Let me be the way I’m not in interviews. I’m furious. I’m furious. [He laughs.] They never asked me about a sequel with the Joker. I know how to do that! Nobody ever asked me.

MTV - I’m surprised to hear you sounding competitive about a role like that.

Nicholson - Well, the Joker comes from my childhood. That’s how I got involved with it in the first place. It’s a part I always thought I should play.

MTV - Will you see the new film?

Nicholson - I’m not inclined to watch it because of what I said. But if it’s a good movie, I’ll catch up with it somewhere. I don’t think they ever really captured Tim Burton’s spirit [since he stopped being involved]. They kind of drove the franchise into the ground. Tim Burton’s a genius. He had the right take on it. That’s why I did the movie. I did the movie based on a single conversation with him. We both come from the cartoon world originally. We had similar ideas. Tim said [the Joker] should have a humorous dark side to him. [Burton is] one of the great moviemakers. I think the world of him. He’s the most unassuming man. And he doesn’t feel pressure. That’s what I love about him. Once he’s in there, he’s smiling making the movie. That’s it!

     You can read the rest of the interview over here at MTV.com

     Personally I think Nicholson is being a big-headed baby about this. His portrayal in Batman ‘89 was fun and it will always remain great to watch but that’s not what The Joker is. For anyone familiar with the comic books The Joker is an evil, sadistic and downright despicable human being, the kind of guy who would shoot a child and laugh straight afterwards. And the way Nicholson portrayed him (and how Tim Burton wrote him to be) was still a little on the dark and ‘bad’ side but a far too campy (again not knocking it). And as for them driving the franchise into the ground; I agree they did with with the fourth one (yes I quite like Forever) but I have a question for Mr Nicholson - did you not see Batman Begins? They totally and completely captured Batman and the whole world around him perfectly.

     In the end though this is just Nicholson expressing what he feels, and I can’t exactly discredit him for speaking his mind. What are your thoughts?

     No secret around here that I love Paul Giamatti. I eagerly anticipate just about anything the man is involved in (though my enthusiasm for Fred Claus has waned due to the lame posters and newest trailer). Still, he’s usually terrific and I’ve learned that one of his newest projects will be to star in an adaptation of an unfinished Phillip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, Total Recall and many others) story.

     The The Owl in Daylight, is a complicated tale that involves Ed Firmley, a B-movie composer, a race of aliens that have evolved without the ability to hear sounds, and our deeply held believes about art, happiness, and, oh yeah, heaven.

says Giamatti (who actually plays Dick in the film):

“There’s a guy writing a script right now… The idea is to take one of his last stories and put him as a character in the story. A lot of his stories were about reality getting bent around, so we’re trying to do that.”

“Well [Phillip K. Dick] was mentally ill in a lot of ways and he had lots of problems; he was married many times, was paranoid about a lot of things,” Giamatti explained. “Strange guy. He had a very interesting, complicated life.”

source: MTV movies blog

     Sounds good to me. Giamatti playing Dick in an unfinished story written by Dick has excellence writte all over it. Thoughts? Feel free to let them be known below…

     Among my top 3 actresses is none other than the great Jodie Foster. A woman who has been making movies for over 25 years and turns out a terrific performance time and time again. Just look at her filmography and it realy is astonishing if you remember her character in each and every role.

     So reading an interview with her over at USA Today, I’m not at all surprised by her brash, opinionated ideas of life and movies. However, she made some weird statement that did surprise me a bit. She criticized Oliver Stone’s Natural Born Killers for what she considers “glorified sadism.” Whether you like the film or not (I do), she obviously completely missed the point of what the film was trying to say if she thought it glorified sadism.

     She then moves on to one of my favorite and one of the most entertaining pictures of 2005, Sin City, which she claims she turned off during the viewing.

“That was so painfully cartoonish I was offended,” says Foster, the mother of two, young boys. “I don’t know how you enjoy or laugh about a child abduction and molestation. What part of that sentence is funny? I can’t get beyond that. I don’t know if everyone understands the impact of a movie’s message.”

     Again, I remember young Nancy Callahan being abducted and it is Bruce Willis who must rescue her. But I don’t really remember her being molested, and even if she was, I’m sure I wasn’t laughing about it or thinking it was funny. And the “cartoonish” comment turns me off a bit as the movie was based of a comic book. Duh. I don’t really think the film makes light of, or glorifies this story idea any more than any film noir picture of the 50’s and 60s does it? Sure, there’s more language and comic book violence, but how does that make it more “offensive” in the way in which she describes?

     Hey I get it, the movie might not be everyone’s cup of tea; but to say it glorifies or makes light of child molestation goes a bit far. Also, this coming from the woman who starred in Silence of the Lambs. There was FAR MORE sick shit in that movie than in Sin City. I guess I’m just puzzled by some of her statements. Anyone care to clear it up for me? I love Jodie Foster, but these statements don’t seem educated or even correct to me.

     In an interview I just found from a few days ago that John Cusack gave with The Guardian UK, he claims he’s only made 10 good movies. He doesn’t list what they are, but he says, “I’m sure you know which ones they are. The ones that suck I tend to blank out. It’s like I never even made them.”

     First off, I love John Cusack. Even if the film he’s in sucks, I like him in them. Here’s a list of movies I like that star (or at least co-star) John Cusack. Let’s see if it’s more than 10.

Better off Dead
Eight Men Out
Say Anything
Grosse Pointe Blank
Con-Air (guilty pleasure)
The Thin Red Line
Being John Malkovich
High Fidelity
1408

And these films rocked, but don’t really count because he was barely in them: Stand By Me, Sixteen Candles, Broadcast News and The Journey of Natty Gann.

     So that’s nine on my list, wow. He’s about right with his 10 number! Of course he knows his career better than anyone I suppose. Still, there are a few movies in his filmography I have yet to see (e.g. Bullets Over Broadway or The Grifters, is that any good?). So I’m sure there are some more films that are maybe decent. Plus, I suppose cases could be made for films like City Hall, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil or The Road to Wellville. But even so, give or take a couple of films, he pretty much hit the nail on the head with 10 good films (out of about 40 starring roles). “But that’s fine. Ten is a good batting average, don’t you think?” he said.

     Basically the interview is him discussing 1408 (MP review), since that was recently released in he UK. Putting all that info aside, here are some other interesting tid-bits Cusack had in the interview regading his career in general:

“I suppose I have a certain thing I do well that people seem to like. Not everyone likes it, of course. The guy in the Guardian last week certainly didn’t. So there you go,” he smiles. “Some people like it, other people don’t.”

re: Sure Thing, Say Anything, High Fidelity: “I’m aware of the affection those characters inspired. I feel close to Lloyd in Say Anything. He was like a super-interesting version of me. Only I’m not as good as him. Whatever part of me is romantic and optimistic, I reached into that to play Lloyd. Of course, now it’s all gone. Now I’m just bitter.”

“People who offer me work,” he says. “There’s this brand that they think I am, and I get sent stuff that corresponds to that. I have to do it. It’s not like there are 10 projects on offer at any one time, and six of them are brilliant. No one cares. The movies have got more corporate, they’re making fewer movies in general, and those they are making are all $200-$300m tent-pole releases that eat up all the oxygen.”

Then he says seriously, “I think I’m pretty brave, I’ll take risks. I can look at my career and point to the movies that were risky. Being John Malkovich worked out great, so people tend to forget what a risk it was - first-time writer, first-time director and so on. I read that screenplay four years before it got made. I’d said to my agents: ‘Show me scripts that are fantastic and crazy.’ I love getting up on that tightrope. I wish I could do it more, but I have to balance what I want to do with what people want me to do.”

     After all that, there’s another “risk” movie Cusack has coming that should gain him some attention in the actors critics circles out there. It’s called Grace is Gone and not only won the audience choice award at Sundance this year, but looks extremely emotional, heartfelt, beautiful and best of all, Cusack looks to be amazing in it. You can check out the trailer below.

     I just came across this interview, over at MTV.com, with Christian Bale and Russell Crowe where they talk about the very much anticipated movie 3:10 To Yuma. The interview is insightful, particularly into the relationship between the two actors and why they decided to do this film in particular. Here is a excerpt, which is the funniest part of the interview:

MTV: I can only assume that the two of you are as fascinated watching each other act as we in the audience are …

Crowe: [He glances at Bale with a grin.] I was fascinated watching you work!

Bale: We would just be stunned! Stunned into silence looking at each other!

Crowe: I was a stunned mullet.

Bale: [Sarcastically pretending he’s on set] “Oh, I’m sorry, was that my line? I didn’t realize. I was so stunned by your performance.”

You can read the rest of the interview here 

     I was just reading over at comingsoon.net (via Screenrant) about a story in which Paul Haggis has said that the next Bond film will start about 2 minutes after where Casino Royale left off. I think this is an excellent idea; not to mention fairly original. Especially in the Bond universe.

“My Bond is an actual assassin; when he kills someone, he kills them with a knife, they’re bloody and he pays a price. He denies that he pays a price, but he does. When he sees a woman who witnesses something horrific, and he sees her taking a shower, he doesn’t just go in there and f*ck her, like the old Bond would have done. He sits there with her, and she says, ‘I can’t get this blood from my fingernails.’ So he helps her get the blood from her fingernails; that’s what he does, that’s my Bond. So it’s a different guy… [the next film] picks up 2 minutes after the last one, and it’s going to be fun.”

     What I liked about Casino Royale (MP review), was how unseasoned Bond was and the whys and how of his evolution into what we know as the Bond today. Bond learned a serious life lesson (more than one actually) at the end of Casino Royale. It will be fun to see how that shapes his character almost immediately in the next installment in the Bond saga.

     Personally I think the idea of a Justice League movie is such a stupid idea. To me it’s just not something that can work on the big-screen. But despite my feelings about it it looks like they are going ahead and making it anyway. Well the big question on everyone’s mind is, “will Batman and Superman be making an appearance and if so will it be Bale and Routh who will be playing them?” Well according to IESB.net in an interview with Bale about a 3:10 To Yuma he has some answers. The following is from that interview:

Q: Are you doing Justice League after TDK?

A: No

Q: Have you been approached about it?

A: No

Q: How would you feel about the studio recasting Batman for Justice League?

A: It’d be better if it doesn’t tread on the toes of what we’re doing, though I feel that it would be better if it comes out after Batman 3.

     I think Bale is absolutely right. As I said the idea of doing a Justice League movie is just plain stupid. I can tell that if Batman and Superman (there is no info on whether or not Routh is planning on doing it) were to make an appearance that it would be very small ones and the whole JA movie would just to build up the lesser known characters so that they can have their own spin-off franchise.

     As always, I never watch these things before I see the movie because I like to go in fresh, but the interview ones are cool. The first is my boy Paul Giamatti (he likes it when I call him “G thang”) talking about his character and the weapons he gets to use and more. The rest are more interviews from the other stars (Belucci and Owen) and the director and a few clips from the movie.

Can’t wait for the film which opens wide release on September 7th. See you at the theater!
Thanks to movieweb for the embeddable code.

See the rest of the clips after the unwrap by clicking below…
Read the rest of this entry »

     A few weeks back I put up a post over at Movie Patron where I threatened Kurt and Andrew (the hosts of the cinecast) with a toilet papering of their house if they didn’t make Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon as their DVD Pick of the Week. Rightfully so, they had already chosen it to be their pick. There are so many horror movies put out that just blend in with the rest of the pack that when a new movie does come out that stands apart I feel the need to really highlight it. Behind the Mask is just such a movie.

     I had no idea that when I posted that Nathan Baesel, the star of Behind the Mask was actually going to see my post and make a comment. Shortly after I also found out that Scott Glosserman, the director also commented over on my Weekly DVD Pick FilmGrotto.com. I know I was bouncing off the walls and from the email I received from Andrew I’m pretty sure he was pumped. I decided what the heck both these guys actually took the time to comment on our small movie sites that it couldn’t hurt to see if they would answer a few questions.

     It turns out that both of them are pretty cool guys and were willing to do an “interview”. After a couple of emails I sent off a list of questions to Nathan Baesel and I set up a phone interview with Scott Glosserman. Unfortunately I had to bail on my phone interview with the director of Behind the Mask for the time being but I’m still planning on doing the phone interview in the near future once his schedule clears up.

     I want to thank both Nathan and Scott for being really cool and giving me the chance to do these interviews. They’ve pretty much made my year. What can I say I’m a fanboy of good movies.

     I just received the answers to my questions from Leslie Vernon himself so without further adieu here is what he had to say:

Read the rest of this entry »

     Usually not too into talking about movie that are more than two years away, but this sounds interesting. Avatar has been mentioned and rumored about on the net over the past year or more, so I’ve stayed away from talking about it. But there’s one thing in this “inteview” that has me intrigued.

     Laz Alonso, co-starring in the picture, got caught a screening of Captivity the other day by MTV reporters. Here’s a couple snippets of things he said:

“I had to sign something that swore me to secrecy; to be honest with you, I don’t know what I’m allowed to talk about or not — so just to be on the safe side, I ain’t saying jack. But it’s just a sci-fi movie that’s going to blow your socks off.”

From MTV.com:
This much we do know: Cameron loves to unveil new technology with his films. The filmmaker has already confirmed that the flick is being shot in 3-D and will combine live-action and computer-generated characters and environments. We also know they are filming in New Zealand and Hawaii; as well as the green-screen shoots in L.A.

More from Alonso:

“The technology that he’s using is something that hasn’t been done before, the way that he’s doing it. When you see guys like Marilyn Manson coming through, and Peter Jackson and Spielberg coming through to see what this new cutting-edge technology is, you know you really have something special going on. What we’re seeing right now as far as technology [in today’s blockbusters] is level one. What you’ll be seeing when this movie comes out is roughly like a level 20.”

     Those are some bold statements. Of course actors of upcoming films always say stuff like this; but with Cameron at the helm (who hasn’t done anything for 12 years) it really has me intrigued as to what this is going to be. A 3-D film with half live-action and half CGI sounds pretty wicked. Especially in space with aliens and what not - I’m pretty jazzed up. Sounds like a real fun treat and I have no problem with Cameron and trust him completely. From Aliens to Terminator 2 to The Abyss to Titanic, we know the guy can make some great movies and has a creativity level that goes though the roof. I’m officially interested.

     Others in the cast include the stunning Zoe Saldana, Michael Biehn, Sigourney Weaver and Sam Worthington.

     I‘ve been holding off on announcing this until I had confirmed the actual interview. It is now confirmed so I’ll let you know. On Tuesday evening I’ll be interviewing the director of Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (Movie Patron Review), Scott Glosserman. This is my first interview so its a big thing for me. I’m really looking forward to chatting with him. I’ll be posting the interview in two parts. Half will be here on the Movie Patron blog and the other half will be at my FilmGrotto.com site. If the audio quality works out I’ll also be providing it to Andrew so he can include in an upcoming Cinecast. It will likely take a few days to type out the interview but as long as everything goes alright it will up by the end of the next week.

     In addition I’m doing an e-mail interview with Nathan Baesel. If you don’t know he is Leslie Vernon. I’ve sent my questions to him and I’m waiting for his response. As soon as I get them I will be posting that interview up also.

     Both of these guys are being really cool by agreeing to do an interview with a movie fan like myself. I for one can’t wait to hear what they have to say.