Remakes & Reboots: The sequel to the prequel of the new movie made 20 years ago
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Bill & Ted 3: Should not be sequeled.
I saved this movie for last in a new category called "Should not be sequeled". Recently, Keanu Reeves and Alex Winters have confirmed that they will be doing a Bill & Ted 3. Now, I am a huge fan of the Bill and Ted franchise, and I would much more appreciate a remake. But for the love of Jesse, Jacob and Jeremiah these men are in their 40's! And besides that, Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey had an ending that signaled that it was the end, and it was a great ending at that.
I recently spoke of milking a dry cow. There is no reason to try and add onto a solidified story? This new Bill and Ted won't have the same feel as the first two, primarily because it's been such a huge gap since the last movie (1991). George Carlin can't play Rufus anymore because, well, he's dead (Rest In Peace). I mean they could always do the Shining Time Station swap and get Ringo Starr to play Rufus but it won't be the same. If these two are going to play an aged Bill & Ted, who in their youths were symbols of rebellion and energy, then I don't think it will be an enjoyable movie.
Keanu says that the plot is basically about how Bill and Ted were supposed to save the world, and that wasn't accomplished so they are now possessed with trying to do that. Does it seem like a decent plot? NO! Come on it's been 20 years. In Bogus Journey, they traveled through time to learn how to play the guitars,and it worked brilliantly. So you expect me to believe that with an ending to the second movie that included two intelligent aliens and the grim reaper, that the world saving song still has not been written 20 years later? SHENANIGANS!
Look, I'm sure that there are a few people that may find the movie interesting. But it just doesn't sit with me? What are your thoughts on this movie idea? Should they or shouldn't they?
Whoever thinks that the Matrix franchise should be rebooted should be stuffed in a box and dropped from a high altitude over a sea of acid. The Matrix trilogy changed the way we as people see the world. O.k maybe for a lot of people it wasn't that deep, but you can't sit there and say that it didn't change your life. The Matrix offered unique camera graphics that were never seen before in film. For example, Trinity's slow motion kick that left fans with their mouths dropped wide open. Due to the uniqueness of the graphics, multiple movies and shows replicated the stunts in their own unique ways.
The concepts of the Matrix had people scratching their heads and asking for more at the same time. It challenged people to open their minds to new and incredible opportunities. The plot challenged people to think. It wasn't too difficult to understand, unlike Watchman where I am still confused as to what the plot is and why the movie ever had to be.
The Matrix is a classic example of a film or franchise that was meant for a certain time and that time only. It's like remaking the Titanic: what would be the point of retelling such a major story if the original was told so darn well? Doing something like that would ensure no justice to the original and it would not make anywhere near as much as those films have made.
There are an assortment of franchises that need rebooting. I don't even condone a sequel or prequel. Adding any small bit could mess the whole thing up. If it is done, I guess the Wachowski brothers would think it's the best thing to do, but they haven't said anything about it. I'm glad that rumors of a 4th Matrix were just rumors. I don't think there is any more room left for story with this franchise. There is such a thing as milking a dry cow, you get no results. The Matrix era has come and gone, let's not disturb what has already been made good history.
This will be the first time I reference a remake and have absolutely nothing negative to say about it (Sorry Mario). In 1984, Christopher Lambert donned a kilt of Scottish clansmen Connor Macleod and helped tell a story about a young man (well not that young) that was trying to survive deadly odds against other beings like him who are genuine Immortals. The Highlander Franchise started through that movie and has accumulated an insurable amount of fans and profit. The movie became sequel, that transferred into television shows. For nearly 15 years, Highlander captured the imaginations of fans. It's been years since the franchise has been in any media outlet and I think it's high time that Connor Macleod makes his return. I mean come on, why wouldn't people today want to see a movie about 400 year old immortals that decapitate each other for power and sustenance? People did in the 80's and that turned out pretty well. Now with this vampire kick that everyone is on, I think that stretching the imagination to understand this storyline won't be difficult at all.
The Highlander franchise has definitely made it's imprint on society. The franchise brought much fame to Queens "Princes of the Universe" through the television show starring Adrienne Paul, and is a song that I play in my head, constantly. The slogan "There can be only one" is as legendary as Tony Mantana's "Say Hello To My Little Friend!" Yeah I said it, and I dare anyone to disagree. Ok...ok well maybe it isn't that huge, but it's a darn popular slogan.Now I agree that there are some works that need not to be remade because the story was so intricate and casting was so right, that trying to redo it would probably destroy the sacredness of the original film. But I believe that this is a story that should be retold. These are characters that should be reborn with heightened graphics and crap-the-pants fight scenes.
The concept of the franchise is not a boring one, and it shows by the fan base it accumulated. The first movie had a healthy dose of time jumping, not staying too long in any part of Connors past, but long enough to get the context for the present day events. If the reboot would follow that rule as well as give an even dose of story and action, maybe a bit more action than story as long as the story is understandable and not crappy, then it should be a success. Movie goers today need that edge of the seat excitement. Even in romance movies, there has to be a level of excitement or drama that keeps them guessing and gasping. I think that Highlander can accomplish that and then some, with the proper casting and story writing that will do the first great justice.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? SCARFACE IS A REMAKE? THAT'S CRAZY! Yes I know these are your thoughts, and I said the same thing when I found out that the 1983 gangster thriller Scarface, was a remake of the 1932 film Scarface.....which is an adaptation of the 1929 book....Scarface...that's alot of scarfaces. The book and the first film were loosely based of of Al Capone, whose nickname was, well, Scarface.
The first film deals with a man named Tony Clamonte (played by Paul Muni) who works for a crime lord named John Lovo. Lovo has Tony kill the crime lord of the south side of Chicago, having Lovo take control of it. Lovo tells Tony not to mess with the North side gangs, but Tony gets swept up in a rush of power and disobeys. Him and hes partner Guino start trouble with the north side, causing death and trouble where they went. Lovo sees that Tony has gotten out of control and has eyes for his position and his woman. Tony and his own crew successfully takes over the north side and then successfully kills Lovo after Lovo tried to have Tony killed by a car bomb. Tony discovers that his sister Francesca has married Guino. In a fit of over protective rage, Tony kills Guino. As Tony and an upset Francesca return to Tony's mansion, they are ambushed bu cops. Francesca tries to help his sister but is killed. Tony tries to flee, but is then killed also.
The plot for the Scarface remake keeps the core plot, but is heavily beefed up with more story and modernized for the 80's culture. Tony Montana (Al Pacino) and his friend Manny are Cuban refugees. Being sent to a refugee camp, they encounter a rich drug lord named Frank Lopez who offers them green cards in exchange for doing an assassination job. Completing the job, they take a cocaine buying job from Omar Suarez, who is a worker of Franks. After the deal goes bad, Tony suspects that the deal was a setup by Omar. After wards, both Manny and Tony start to work for Frank. On a Bolivian job, Tony discovers from their cocaine kingpin Alejandro Sosa, that Omar is a cop Sosa's men hang Omar from a helicopter. Tony vouches for Frank and Sosa warns Tony never to betray him. Frank was not pleased about Omar and with Tony because of the secret transactions he was doing. Their partnership ends. Tony then begins his own operations and tries to take Frank's woman away from him. Tony is nearly killed by gunmen at a club but escapes. Tony and Manny visit Frank and kill him after Frank admits to calling the hit. Tony and Manny take over Frank's empire and wealth and Tony marries Frank's woman. Tony and his wife become addicted to crack and his operations begin to fail. The police raid Tony's house and jails him, but he makes bail. Sosa reaches an agreement with Tony, that Sosa would keep Tony out of Jail if Tony assassinated a Journalist set to expose Sosa in NYC. Tony and one of Sosa's men set a car bomb for the journalist and waited for him to leave. The journalist and his family get into the car and Tony has second doubts about killing innocent people. Before Sosa's man can detonate the bomb, Tony kills him and Sosa warned Tony again about betraying him. Tony returns to Florida to learn that his sister Maria has married Manny. Tony Kills Manny in a blind rage because he is very protective of his sister. Later at Tony's mansion, Sosa's men crash in to kill Manny. Maria tries to help but is killed. High from Cocaine, Tony makes a last iconic stand to stay alive and kill everyone, but is killed.
As you can see, There are core similarities such as this Tony character working for a rich scumbag as a hit man and then some. Tony falls in love with the scumbag's woman and starts to create a name for himself. Tony and his friend succeed in killing the boss they worked for after the boss, in a jealous fit, tries to kill them first. They become wealthy and powerful. Tony's friend marries his sister and Tony Kills him. Then Tony and his sister are killed by an opposing force.
The Pacino remake offers a more updated and brutal story than the first film for obvious cultural reasons. There is more of a racial variety than the remake and due to that, a smart location change. The Tony of the remake seems more arrogant and prideful than the first Tony, and it shows in the ending. The ending of Scarface is historic, with Tony taking his final stand, unlike the first film where that Tony flees. Original Ending
Remake Ending
The remake is clearly not for the faint of heart and the original has it's place in time. You can look at both films and take appreciation for the base plot. But if you need that rush, that thrill, that final scene where Tony refers to his "Little Friend" before blowing up half a room, than the remake is just for you!
There's only one movie where you can see Arnold Schwarzenegger shoot a missile into an abandoned building from a moving Jet with a bad guy stuck to the missile. No it wasn't the Terminator keep guessing......no it wasn't Terminator 2 either........umm no, Total recall took place on Mars so no, but you're getting there........(sigh) noooooooo it wasn't Commando.........NO NO NOOO It wasn't Kindergarten Cop, WRONG! The answer we were looking for is True Lies (points to the blog title) Duuuhh!
All jokes aside, in 1994, Arnold Schwarzenegger and the lovely Jamie Lee Curtis teamed up to tell the story of a man named Harry (Schwarzenegger) that is living a double life. One one side he is a husband and father, with a cover job of being a computer salesman. On the other side, he is an anti-terrorist secret agent for the United States Government. His wife Helen (Curtis) and daughter have no idea that Harry is a spy. Harry finds out that his wife is unknowingly being seduced by her co-worker so Harry and partner Albert Gibson (played by Tom Arnold) set up a ploy to kidnap Helen and find out what she thinks about her marriage and where her co-worker lives. After she reveals her want for adventure, Harry gives her a mission to seduce a drug smuggler, who is played by Harry in the shadows of a hotel room, to get intel on his plans. During the process, Harry and Helen are kidnapped by a terrorist's henchmen and fed truth serum to get some vital information. Harry reveals that he is a spy to Helen. The terrorist obtains Harry's daughter (Eliza Dushku) for ransom as he is in control of nuclear missiles. Harry and Helen work together through a series of events to get their daughter back and dispose of the terrorist and the nuclear bomb. At the end, it is revealed that Helen becomes a spy with her husband.
The movie was high in suspense and full of very comical parts. All of these things added together to make up a great film. Now here is the part that threw me for a huge loop. This great film is not completely original. True Lies is in fact based off of a 1991 french film entitled La Totale! The film covers the basic core storyline that is presented to us in True Lies, which is a man that is living the double life of a model executive and a secret agent. He discovers that his wife is bored of their home life and is having an affair. François, the spy, tries to teach his wife a lesson, but in the midst gets caught in a situation with an international arms smuggling cartel.
True Lies is basically La Totale! with steroids. Some of the names are different but the names of Helen and Albert are the same. There is more added onto the plot with some differences that enhance the story such as dealing with a terrorist rather than an arms smuggler and the addition of the daughter, the fighter jets, the massive explosions, ect. It is a good thing that the writers and director choose to keep the core plot because it is a good one. The additions in the American version makes it better. And of course, none of the french actors make an cameo in the new version.
I've made reference a few blogs ago that I was hopelessly in love with Angelina Jolie. If you really want to know why, let us travel back to 2001 when she slipped on the short shorts, tight shirt and 9MM pistols to take on the role of Lara Croft in Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. This movie was honestly every gamers fantasy come true. The film was the motion picture adaptation to the popular 1996 title: Tomb Raider. The game followed a young and sexy British archaeologist named Lara Croft as she traveled through catacombs, ancient temples and underground cities to unearth ancient relics, some of which had the power to destroy the world or grant any person great power. Lara was the female hero that could do anything. (Literally, this woman could move huge blocks of solid rock like it was nothing!)
Now as for the film, since Lara can look for just about anything in these underground caves and cities, it would be easy to construct a good story for her to tackle, which they did. Her objective was to stop her father's best friend and murderer from obtaining an artifact that can control space and time. The movie stays consistant with the game as far as characters such as her butler, the huge mansion/training course, the death of her father and her strange relationship with archaeologist Alex West (played by Daniel Craig). There is a character named Bryce who is Lara's assistant. Bryce is not in the game at all, but he doesn't cause any conflicts in the film's plot.
Angelina is just as agile in the film as the real Lara is on the game, and just as deadly. She utilizes a hots of weapons to carry out her missions, which the game vixen does each and every time. Jolie made her stamp and finally gave Lara a real face for people to remember. The resemblance was uncanny between the character's design and Jolie's features. Great job of casting.
It is unlikely that the film will not be remade due to the decline of popularity over the years. I for one am pretty glad that no one else will be stepping foot into the shorts and boots. Directors and Writers can leave the story where it is, because I honestly can't see anyone else portraying Lara as good as Angelina did.
Domestic:$20,915,465 It hurts my little gamer heart to say this, but the 1993 adaptation of Super Mario Brothers sucked very badly. I'm not going to go into a rant because as a child, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and was excited to see pudgy Mario in real life. Then I went to the store and bought a Super Mario kite, and flew it around. Ahhh those were the days. But besides that, sometimes as a child, some things just excite you and at that phase of life, you don't really have that much of a critical side. But growing up, you look at the actual story, and then the movie, and then you ask yourself "What the (bleep) were they thinking?" Having to say bad things about this movie and feeling how I do is a clear case of Cognitive Dissonance (Whoa...college words), but I will do my best to give you all the low down.
The plot of the legendary 1985 classic Super Mario Bros. is as simple as they come, which was to rescue Princess Toadstool from the evil King Koopa (Bowser). There were multitude of worlds to go through in order to reach Bowser's castle and save the princess. It was oh so obvious that Mario and Princess Toadstool (Later named Princess Peach) had a thing going on.
Now we come to the film, where pretty much the only consistent thing is that Mario (played by Bob Hoskins)is short and fat and Luigi (played by John Leguezamo) is tall and skinny and they are plumbers. First, a meteorite hit the earth billions of years ago, splitting the Earth into two realms, trapping most of the dinosaurs in the other realm. Present day: the brothers are plumbers from New York who stumble onto a portal into Bowser's (Played by Dennis Hopper) world while chasing the kidnappers of Luigi's gf Daisy (who is really Princess Daisy). The brothers discover who this Bowser character is and try to stop him from merging the realms together again through Daisy. Daisy is the princess of that dino world and her father has been transformed into a gross toadstool. Yoshi is trapped as well by Koopa and is freed by Daisy. In the end, Mario and Luigi face off against Koopa who has turned into a large T-Rex. They were able to dizzolve Koopa into a vat of goo in the end.
Where do I begin? First, Koopa never takes a human form, that's just wrong. Daisy is a real character in the Mario world, but why they would choose to go with her instead of Peach is beyond me. I understand trying to switch some things up to make it unique and relate it to the real world, but it all seemed a little sloppy to me. Yoshi didnt need to be in the movie at all. He really didn't do anything and im pretty sure the movie would have gotten along without him. The earth never split into realms and Bowser is NOT a T-Rex. That was just a bad job on their part. All the graphics technology they had and they couldn't create something that looks like the actual Bowser? I call foolishness. Some of the consistencies were the koopa troops and the walking bombs. Oh, and that Mario was fat and short and Luigi was tall and skinny (Did I say that already?)
I understand modernizing for the effect of relation to the audience, but it didn't work, at all. I think that in today' world, with enhanced technology, they could redo Super Mario and turn it into the film that it should have been with all the correct characters and story plots. I'm not saying that there can's be some subtle changes to enhance the story for the viewers, but just not so much that it becomes unrecognizable to the public. Little known fact, both Hoskins and Leguezamo consider this film to be the worst movie they have ever done in their career. Go figure!
Before there was a Mortal Kombat, there was a Street Fighter. The popular video game, released in 1987, predates Mortal Kombat by 4 years. So it would be fitting for the Street Fighter motion picture adaptation to precede Mortal kombat's. Released in 1994, Street Fighter starred such actors as Jean-Claude Van Damme and the late Raul Julia. The plot of the movie is pretty original from the game, considering the came consists of fighters traveling around the world to fight others in tournament fashion.
The Allied Nations, which is a multi-nation military corp, launches a mission in the fictional land of Shadaloo to fight off the forces of known drug lord M. Bison. One of the A.N soldiers, Carlos "Charlie" Blanka, gets kidnapped by Bison's men and taken to a lab to be genetically altered. Guile (played by Van Damme) goe in to find Charlie since they are good friends. The plot has it so each main character (Chun-Li, Ryu, Ken, Balrog, Honda) has a reason for going after Bison and they each meet each other in separate ways. Such characters as Cammy, A.J Vega and Sagat are present in the movie as well. In the end, Guile takes out Bison and the enemy's hideout is destroyed. Bison, survives in the end, in a way that hinted that there was going to be a sequel.
There are alot of Hollywood-ized differences in the movie that separate it from the game. First, Shadaloo was not a nation, it is the name of Bison's crime syndicate. M. Bison was never mentioned to be a drug lord in the game, but a crime boss who was hell bent on world domination and developed something called "Psycho energy" that greatly enhanced his fighting ability and gave him powers. Ryu and Ken are portrayed to be con artists, which they are not nor ever have been. They are martial artists and to be honest, the main antagonists of the Street Fighter world and not Guile. They obviously did that to give Jean-Claude an image boost. Balrog never fought alongside Chun-Li, instead he was really Bison's enforcer. Dr. Dhalsim was never doctor and he wasn't the one who transformed Charlie into the monster Blanka. I have to give credit for some consistency such as Chun-Li's quest for revenge on Bison for killing her father and Guile's quest to recover his long lost friend Charlie.
The special effects were horrible. Like Mortal Kombat, each character had some sort of enhanced special moves or projectile power in the game. Mortal Kombat picked which character should have those same powers in the movie and which needed to be powerless. In Street Fighter, no one had powers except for Ryu, who when he actually did his power, the Hadoken blast, looked like the cheesiest and cheapest thing I have ever seen in any movie.
I am indeed a Street Fighter fan, and this film gave no justice to the franchise at all. A reboot is way overdo to set order and balance right for this franchise. I am sure that fans would love to see a correct representation of their favorite characters and the correct telling of the story. I'm not going to touch on the 2nd Street Fighter movie "Legend of Chun-Li" for obvious reasons (coughs) *It sucked*. The only good thing about that film was Kristen Kreuk (sigh).
When Batman rebooted itself in 2005, I thought that it was going to suck and suck hard. Batman has been through the reboot ring a couple of times with Adam West's onomatopoeia Batman and Michael Keaton's darker yet 10X cooler than Adam West in tights Batman. I was a huge fan of Michael Keaton's Batman and thoroughly enjoyed Batman and Batman Returns. But if you are like me, you felt some anguish when Val Kilmer and George Clooney took the mantle in Batman Forever and Batman and Robin. I can see what they were trying to do with the whole age progression thing, but they changed too much too soon. The Bat-mobile looked stupid with those two wing attachments, i'm sorry but someone has to say it. There is a reason why if any tv show or movie has the Bat-mobile, it's the one Keaton had and not the updated fairy mobile. The last two films lost their dark tone and took a very goofy and cheesy tone. The Terminator as the ice man? Really? It was safe to say, I wasn't pleased.
So now in 2005, we have this new film, and the man playing Batman used to be a Newsies kid. So I steadily boycotted the film until I actually sat down and watched it. It's funny how quickly hope in something can be restored because after the movie ended, I was back on the Bat train. I loved everything from the new bat suit, to the humongous Bat tank. Now, back then I thought that the film was a prequel, and did justice by the first film by stating that the Joker would be the next target for Batman at the end. So I thought they pulled a George Lucas. How shocked I was to see that it was not a prequel but indeed a reboot. I didn't want to see a new Joker because I was pretty content with Jack Nicholson's portrayal in 1989. But when I saw the late Heath Ledger take that role to new depths of narcissism and evil, I knew that this franchise was indeed something special.
The Dark Knight rolled onto the screen in 2009 and took fan for one of the longest (That movie was freaking long) and twisted rides any super hero fan has been on in a good while, if ever. The Dark Knight was a huge success in both box office and fan base. The fans of old joined with the new fans to create a cultural and generational bridge. In short, the movie was all that.
Flash forward two years, we have entered into the rebooting mindset with two of the biggest film heroes, Spider-Man and Superman, dropping the old story lines and receiving reboot treatment. With talks of a third Batman movie underway, I breath a sigh of relief with other fans that the franchise has not been rebooted. I don't see any point in rebooting right now, especially when super hero movies are so popular now. As I said with Superman, there are tons of villains in the DC universe that have yet to step foot onto the big screen and even more story lines to be shown. Robin doesn't stay Robin forever, Batgirl gets shot and paralyzed, Batman eventually meets Superman and joins the Justice League. There are so many ways to go with the story.
No one cares about the beginnings anymore. We all know how Bruce became Batman and we all know how Clark became Superman. Now it's time to focus on continuity. Let's keep the same actors and directors, or at least have replacement actors and directors that will commit to the original story idea and not twist it so much that in hangs on by a thread. We have a Justice league movie finally in the works. I want to see Christian Bale as Batman, and someone good for Superman. It can be Tom Welling, Brandon Routh, or even this new guy if he does Superman justice.
So no, I do not endorse this franchise rebooting, not when the success rate is so high. Even if the third bombs, it can be saved in the forth just don't reboot.
If you haven't seen Ip Man yet, you are seriously missing out on one of the best martial arts films of the decade. Ip Man is the semi-autobiographical epic about Bruce Lee's master, Ip Man, and his amazing story about how he overcame the Japanese invasion of his homeland. The film was not only a martial art masterpiece but it was brilliantly cast, primarily because Donnie Yen played Ip Man. If you aren't familiar with Donnie, then you should check out Iron Monkey, Blade 2, and Dragon Tiger Gate.
By now everyone has heard of the legacy of Bruce Lee and how great a martial artist he was. There was a reason why, and his name was Ip Man. As the story tells, Ip Man was a master of Wing Chun who lived in Foshan, China. Ip Man lived his way through the Second Sino-Japanese war, teaching his people Wing Chun along the way so that they could protect themselves from the beatings and torture. Now there may have been spots where the film deviated from the actual life happenings of the real Ip Man, but if the real deal was as sick as the movie character, I can fully understand why Bruce was so incredible.
Ip man was so quick and strong with his Wing-Chun that he was literally unbeatable. Seriously, this man took one hit...ONE HIT throughout the entire film. He's like that main boss in the fighting game, you know...the one where after you have painstakingly beaten all of the other fighters, then you face this person that my not look very intimidating, but mops the floor with your skull repeatedly to the point where you jam your controller through the floor and flip off the television screen with tears in your eyes....yeah..HE'S THAT TOUGH! And I fully believe that he was that tough in real life because there is no way that they can just put this man on "God Mode" in the film and there not be a shred of truth to back it up. I believe that that toughness was present in the real Ip Man, which is why he was successful with teaching Wing Chun across the world.
I'm not too big on remaking films that has made a statement for people. Someone may try to recreate that statement a generation or two later, only to have the strong possibility that the statement will be a very weak one. This film told the story, it demonstrated the techniques, and it connected with it's audience morally and emotionally. This movie needs to be left alone, and go down in history with the same reputation that it does now, as a great film. I vote NO REMAKES, lest the soul of Donnie Yen...or..Ip Man I should say... comes to that film studio and Wing Chuns the crap out of every single person, and he can do it, because his name is Ip Man!
Domestic: $63,075,011 Foreign: $52,589,026 I hope all of you have had your cups of espresso and cans of red bull, because when you tango with Freddy, you don't wake back up, ever again. The boogey man from elm street made his big screen return in 2010 to an audience that was ready to feel the splatter. This new Freddy took a more serious tone than the comedic Freddy we are all used to. The new Freddy also had a new look, with a fifth blade on his glove, a blue trench coat and facial damage far worse than the first freddy, actually resembling a severe 3rd degree burn patient. Robert Englund portrayed Freddy in the 1984 version and has helped to bring that franchise much success with the subsequent Nightmare movies. This new story carries some of the same plot points as the original, but deviates in its own way.
Freddy's background was updated from a power plant worker turned child murderer to a preschool groundskeeper that was also a child molester. Nancy is still the main character in the film, but instead of there being a Nancy Thompson, there was a Nancy Holbrook who was a waitress. The characters Tina (Nancy's best friend) and Rod (Tina's boyfriend) from the first film are now known as Kris and Jesse. In the first film, Krueger was obsessed with Nancy because he kept failing at killing her. In the remake, Nancy was an abuse victim of Freddy's when she was a child and Freddy considered her his favorite.
There are still plot points in the remake such as Nancy being able to dream about Freddy as well as her friends, and her being the one to pull Freddy from the dream world into the real world and kill him, even though the remake details a more bloody ending for Freddy. Nancy's mom still dies and Nancy gets kidnapped by Freddy.
The new Freddy has received the gritty reboot that many reboot films are getting including the new Spider-Man. In these films, everything has a darker tone to it, and things that may have happened in the past may happen in new and gruesome ways. If there was any film that could use darker tones, Nightmare on Elm Street is it.
There was one other Nightmare film that came close to the darkness and seriousness that the remake contains. Wes Craven's New Nightmare showed Freddy to be less comical and more devastating in his darkness. Craven actually envisioned Freddy to be less funny and more evil. The new Freddy accomplishes that feat. It will be hard to not have Freddy call his victim's "Bitches" while he slices them in half, but if the new Krueger can achieve a darker sadistic level than his predecessor, that I can do without the comedy.
Domestic:$176,591,618 Foreign: $182,534,404 Everyone, from the youngest to the oldest, knows the name of Mr. Miyagi. The late Pat Morita turned the role of the immigrant handyman into a legend in the 1984 classic The Karate Kid. The name of Mr. Miyagi has been uttered in multiple television shows and movies, separate from the story of The Karate Kid. The story of the Karate kid went down in history, not to be opposed by any other family friendly martial arts movie.
So what happens when the movie goes up against itself for the championship? In 2010, The Karate Kid made a come back for a new generation of kids and adults, hoping to have the similar effect that it's predecessor did. The remake stayed true to the original story with certain changes that made the film more interesting. Let's get into the similarities and differences of the films with a question at the forefront of our minds: Is Jackie Chan's Mr. Han better than Pat Morita's Mr. Miyagi?
The remake follows the story of Dre (played by Jaden Smith) and his mother Sherry (Played by Taraji P. Henson) as they venture from Detroit to China due to a job relocation. Once in China, Dre eventually meets the handyman for their complex Mr. Han, who seems to be a not so nice old man. Dre tries to charm a nice Chinese girl, but angers Cheng (played by Zhenwei Wang) who is a martial artist and a family friend of the Chinese girl. Dre suffers multiple beatings and starts to have emotional resentments towards China and his Mother for making him move their. One day in particular Dre tries to get revenge by splashing hot water on Cheng. This enrages Cheng and his friends and the chase Dre back to his home. Once their the begin beating on Dre severely. When Cheng was ready to deliver the final blow, Mr. Han stepped in and fought the boys off. Using ancient healing practices, Mr. Han able to heal Dre's wounds. Later Dre and Mr. Han meet with the instructor of the Dojo where Cheng trains and set up a challenge at the upcoming tournament. New Version
Old Version
The story does not deviate much from the original, and the additions add variety and depth to the characters. For example, Mr. Han seems to be a cold person at times, but later we see that he lost his son and wife in a car accident and not through childbirth as the first film told. This added a level of anguish and self hatred to Mr. Han that Mr. Miyagi never had. Another noticeable difference is that the setting is not in the San Fernando Valley, it's in China, and the protagonist family is now African American, which adds racial tension between the characters Dre and Cheng. Mr. Han changes some dynamics by teaching Dre Kung-Fu instead of Karate, which brings this question to mind: Why wasn't it called The Kung-Fu Kid? It seems as though Dre went through more of a training than his first counterpart did. The snake part was exceptionally great.
These new changes have added depth to the story and offers a pleasant change of view on the old classic. But no matter what changes have happened or the new depths, MR. HAN IS NOT BETTER THAN MR. MIYAGI! Im sorry, ima fan of legends.
Back in 2000, Grand Theft Auto hit the big screens...except it wasn't called GTA, but Gone in 60 Seconds. This movie had everything. The suaveness of Nicholas Cage, the sexiness of Angelina Jolie, and the hotness of tons of new and antique exotic speed machines that make you want to sit in the corner and suck on your thumb.
Cage plays ex master car thief Randall "Memphis" Raines. Raines has to return to the game and steal 50 exotic cars in 72 hours for a crime lord who is threatening to kill Raines' brother. Raines and his team successfully catch most of the cars and at the same time eluding the police. The last car, a 1967 Shelby Mustang GT 500 which is codenamed Eleanor, has been Raines' failure since he was professionally stealing cars. Raines accomplishes the feat of getting the car but it takes some serious damage in a police chase. The crime lord is displeased and tries to kill Raines but manages to escape and kills the crime lord with the aid of his friend Attly Jackson, played by Will Patton. The cops discover why Raines got back in the game and decide to let him go. Raines boss Kip, played by Giovanni Ribisi, gives him a restored Eleanor at the end as a gift.
Now in watching this movie, there are two things that I am a fan of. The first is Angelina Jolie. I think she is pretty hot, and don't you DARE judge me. The second thing, or things are the cars. I am a sports car enthusiast, so seeing Ferraris and Mustangs got my engines revved up to the max. There was no need for a sequel to this movie because doing so could totally mess up the entire package (Hollow man 2 ring a bell?) While this movie never planted the seeds of a sequel, its roots go deeper than what most people know.
In the year 1974, Gone in 60 Seconds was released. I encourage getting a copy and watching it, but don't expect the exact story as the remake. In the elder version, Maindrain Pace, played by Tony Halicki, was an insurance investigator who ran a nice quality auto shop by day, but undercover was the leader of a group of car thieves. A South American drug lord offers him $400,000 to deliver 48 top of the line cars in 5 days. After a few difficulties with obtaining the vehicles, the chase becomes about that prize dame Eleanor, which in this primary incarnation is a 1973 Ford Mustang Mach 1. After try after try to get an Eleanor, one is finally captured and thanks to a plate swap, an innocent driver gets mistaken for Pace and goes to jail while Pace and his people deliver the cars.
Unlike The Longest Yard, Gone is 60 seconds does not have any of the actors from the first film in the predecessor film. The 2000 version is an all new cast, all new story plot, and even an all new Eleanor. Both incarnations worked great for the respective generations and still kept a few important plots including the hard to get Eleanor. I don't mind that because it offers such a serious challenge. The same codenamed mustang that caused problems in the 70's came back with a vengeance almost 30 years later. Will their be a remake in the next 20 years or so, maybe. I just hope that if they do decide to make a new Gone in 60 Seconds, that they use an updated supercharged Mustang like the 2011 Shelby Super Snake.
Domestic:$336,530,303 Foreign: $554,341,323 Grade: B
Spider-Man 3 followed the successful tails of the first two films. This particular film was supposed to be huge because it would mean the inclusion of the the powerful black symbiote spider suit and the introduction to Spider-Man's most deadliest foe: Venom. The black symbiote is an alien goo that attaches itself to a human host and feeds off of their inner desires, bring them to the surface of that person's personality. The symbiote attaches to Spider-Man and changes his red and blue costume black.
He under goes a dangerous personality change and almost resorts to killing. Peter Parker finds the weakness of the symbiote, which are super sonic vibrations, and destroys the suit in a church bell tower. The suit drips down and overtakes Eddie Brock, who is an enemy of Peter Parker and Spider-Man, transforming him into the evil beast Venom.
The movie was very high in action and comedy, but some story choices raised eyebrows and a certain character casting decision made every fan cry blasphemy.
First thing is first. Eddie Brock is known to be a witty, tall and very muscular man. He used to be a jock. When Venom is born, it enlarges Eddie's stature, making him look like a huge muscular freak show. This is the Venom that all Spider-Man fans are used to. When the movie was released, fans were not given a monstrous villain nor a Jock Eddie Brock, but instead was presented with a small framed, arrogant Eddie and Venom in the form of Topher Grace, also known as Eric Foreman from That 70's Show. Watching Eddie Brock was literally like watching Eric Foreman become Venom. Then to make the situation worse, Venom gets killed at the end along with Harry Osborne, both of which DO NOT DIE! The sandman was another main enemy, but has no correlation with the Venom saga at all, so I'm still trying to figure our why he was he was in the movie because the movie would have gotten along quite well if he wasn't in it.
I was not pleased with the ending, with Harry dying and the relationship between Peter and Mary Jane diminishing. It left me with alot of questions at the end that I needed answering at that point. I didn't want to wait for a new movie, although if it did, I would have liked for there to be a more concrete story. A year later, it was discovered that all of the actors had dropped out of Spider-Man 4 and the entire project got scrapped. It seemed like this was the era where the third movie of a trilogy deviated from the original so bad to the point where it needed to be rebooted. The same thing happened with the X-Men franchise, which is getting rebooted this summer.
Spider-Man is getting a reboot with new actors, new storylines and a new gritty spin. It is unknown if the reboot will work will work. The Batman francise rebooted successfully and is a beacon of hope to look up to. Hopefully the next time around, they will be wiser with casting and story twists.
Mortal Kombat is one of the most blood thirsty, controversial, and addicting video games to be created. In 1995, New Line Cinema released the successful movie adaptation titled Mortal Kombat. The movie was a hit, allowing for fans to see their favorite characters come to life and perform some popular and signature "Fatalities". In 1997, Mortal Kombat Annihilation, the sequel to Mortal Kombat was hit the screen. Released two years after it's predecessor, Annihilation had a huge reputation to live up to. Instead of a concrete story and a solid direction, the film gave the impression of being rushed and there were choices that were made for the movie that fans are still questioning to this day. This requires some explaining so grab a sandwich and pack your hunting knife, we are going into the sadistic world of Mortal Kombat.
The first Mortal Kombat movie followed the storyline of the first Mortal Kombat game, which debuted in 1992. Fighters from around the world were gathered to compete in a Tournament called Mortal Kombat. The tournament was held once a generation. The host of the tournament was an aged shape shifting sorcerer named Shang Tsung, who has survived centuries by absorbing the souls of those he has killed. The tournament takes place on his island, which can only be summoned during the tournament. The Mortal Kombat world is based on the premise that multiple realms exist and that Earth is the primary realm. Also that there and many gods which control certain elements and walk the Earth at times to intervene in important matters. The realm of Outword, which is a savage wasteland, has won the past 9 tournaments. If they were to win the 10th, they would seize control of Earth for the emperor of Outworld: Shao Kahn. Raiden, who is the god of thunder and lightning and protector of Earth realm, hand selected random fighters to take part in the tournament to win. Raiden's choice champion, a shaolin monk named Liu Kang, was able to overcome the tournament and beat the current Kombat champion, which was a 4 armed beast named Goro. Liu Kang also beat Shang Tsung, solidifying his win of the tournament. The first movie adaptation covered every last part of that story, with a few minor changes to how some characters died and a few surprising location changes, but it all fit and gave a teaser at the end to the next Mortal Kombat movie.
Mortal Kombat 2, 3 and 4 (games) were released between 1993 and 1997. The second game dealt with Shao Kahn bending the rules and hosting a tournament of his own in the realm of Outworld shortly after Liu Kang's victory. This tournament held the same parameters of the last tournament where if Earth Realm loses, Shao Kahn would take control in his sadistic ploy to merge all of the realms into one where he would rule supreme. The fighters of MK1 were in MK2 with some minor upgrades to powers and new characters were introduced. In the end, however, Liu Kang beat Kahn and preserved his championship of Earth realm. In MK3, a very pissed off Shao Kahn decided to flip off the rules of Mortal Kombat and invade the Earth by force. He started a merger of the realms, killing everyone of earth with Shao Kahn taking each and every soul for himself. Raiden was able to protect the souls of all the chosen warriors but could not intervene in stopping Kahn because his immortality becomes null and void in Outworld. Raiden sacrificed his godhood and helped the Earth realm warriors silence Shao Kahn for good. The forth deals with a whole new threat but the focus for this discussion is that at the end of the game, Raiden becomes an Elder god, who are beings that the normal gods answer and pray to.
Now here is where things get tricky with the film. Annihilation was a culmination of Mortal Kombats 2-4 story wise. There were some elements that were cut out, some that were kept and some that were altered. The fault in making such a movie based off of a very broad storyline is that there are bound to be events and characters that will be axed and everything will be rushed and crammed into a tight package. The movie's main focus was the invasion storyline of Mortal Kombat 3, completely dissing the events of Mortal Kombat 2. Such characters as Baraka, Sheeva and Jade that have pivotal roles in the game were given shortened roles in the movie and then killed off. Such characters as Sektor, Ermac, Stryker and Kabal that had important roles in the game at one point or the other, were not in the movie at all. Raiden does sacrifice his powers and is killed by Shao Kahn, but then becomes an Elder god at the end, which doesn't happen until after the events of MK4. The overall graphics were not that bad, but there were a few points where the effects looked cheesy and didn't live up to the graphics of the first movie. There was definitely a point toward the end where there is a flashing light after the final blow to Shao Kahn. Through the use of pause and play on the DVD, it is shown that that light was the flashlight on a piece of equipment that was shaken and kinda distorted, but you can totally see the equipment.
This movie scored significantly less in domestic gross than the first film, but it's not really the director or the scriptwriters fault, sort of. The Mortal Kombat story kept changing in many ways. There was a new game every year or two with new additions and progressions to the story. I wouldn't expect writers to keep up with everything and get it all right, so they can have an A for effort. But, such things a graphics and some vital parts of the story could have been a whole lot better. There is a reason this movie scored less money than the first.
In order to make things right, they would have to completely redo the entire franchise, which would suck because the first film was so good! But I am not worried, especially since director Kevin Tancharoen has created and is releasing ten weekly webisodes retelling the story of Mortal Kombat after he released a 7 minute viral video last year called Mortal Kombat reborn, which offered a new take on the franchise.
After the failure of Annihilation and thirteen years of no MK films, the fans were ready for a new beginning. Hopefully this new look on an old favorite will open the door to a new film franchise that will tell the story correctly and give the fans just what they have been dying for.
Domestic Gross: $200,081,192 Foreign Gross: $191,000,000 Grade: B
News sparked in late 2005 of the triumphant return of The Man of Steel to the big screen. Fans were in a frenzy because after many story re-writes, failed scripts, and almost have Nicholas Cage play Superman, there was finally a story and a worthy actor to wear the S shield (Brandon Routh). In 2006, movie goers flocked to the movies to see the latest chapter in the saga of Kal-El (Superman). The movie took place 5 years after the events of Superman IV: The Quest for Peace. Clark returned home from space and found no remnants of a new Krypton or anything else. In the time that has passed, everyone on Earth had learned to live without Superman, especially Lois Lane, who was now married with a 5 year old son Conner. Superman spends alot of the movie re-introducing himself back into the world as their hero, and showing Lois that the world still needs a Superman. Lex Luthor has discovered the arctic fortress of solitude, and took the crystals that were stored there in a plan to recreate Krypton on Earth, which would mean a world of Kryptonite, which would indeed kill Superman. When Lois and Conner are kidnapped by Lex, Superman rushes to save them while trying to keep Metropolis from being destroyed by the quakes and destruction the "New Krypton" is causing. Superman and Lex fight it out on the Kryptonite island with Lex winning, until Superman lifts the whole island from Earth and throws it into outer space. The radiation nearly kills our hero but he makes a speedy recovery. Then finds out that Conner is actually his.
Now, with all of that said, many people thought that the movie was terrible. I have to disagree. The main reason most fans thought it wasn't great was because there was not enough action. Superman was supposed to come straight out of the gate fighting Bizarro and Metallo and blowing stuff up. Others thought that it was too much of a stretch of reality for Superman to lift an entire island of Kryptonite, and not get killed in the process. Well, all I have to say is, if you were looking for an epic movie of death and fire, THIS WAS NOT THAT MOVIE!!! I mean jeez, Clark left the planet for 5 years. There is no way realistically that he can return and right away face a number of Earth's greatest foes. If it were written that he returns in order to protect the Earth from looming danger than so be it, but it wasn't. Instead, it was written from the standpoint that a hero lost his place in the world, and he had to take the time to regain the trust of human kind, and the trust of his love, Lois. Look at the very first Superman with Christopher Reeves as an example. Superman was introduced into the world and he took the time then to build his reputation and gain the trust of the Earth. He didn't fight super powered freaks until the next three movies. It was the same feel for Superman Returns. I thought that because director Bryan Singer wanted to build more story than action this go around made it such a great movie. Superman hasn't been on screen since the 1980's so there has been a disconnect. There needed to be a connection made again, but i guess that didn't go so well.
There are a few inconsistencies from the comics that I saw that need addressing. First, since Clark is not human and in other Superman stories gets married to Lois, it is discovered that he can not have children. It's genetically impossible. Conner is indeed in the Superman legacy as the new Superboy, but he is not Lois and Clark's son. In fact, he is supposed to be a clone born from the DNA of Superman and Lex, and is released during the period that Superman is killed by Doomsday. Lois never marries anyone else besides Clark. Superman can NOT lift an island of Kryptonite to save his life, ever. But, they tried to keep consistancies by having Lois get pregnant because Clark and Lois did have sex in the fourth movie before he left the Earth.
Next year, there will be a new Superman movie, where they will be re-telling the entire story of Clark's growing up and transformation into Superman, and fights Zod somewhere in the process. More than likely there will be heavy action and alot of the things that fans want. I just think that going back to retell the entire story is a waste of time. There are so many events that happen in the Superman world, and so many villains that have yet to appear on screen. Why not just keep the story going, why not just explore deeper into the world of Superman? If there would have been a new chapter after Superman returned, it would have been action filled and great, with new villains the world has yet to see in movies such as Lobo, Bizarro, Brainiac and Doomsday. The main goal for DC films is that they want to make a Justice league film. They have been talking about it for years, but have never approved a script and keeps rebooting the stories of the heroes. Marvel has kept a consistent flow for more than 5 years now, and because of that, there will be an Avengers movie next year with set characters that live in the same non-rebooted world. If DC keeps rebooting its characters, they will never make it to their goal, ever.
Domestic: $158,119,460 Foreign: $32,201,108 Grade: B
In 2005, the world saw Adam Sandler don a football uniform and helmet and run screaming down the field. No this wasn't The Water boy 2 and no Sandler was not the soft hearted beast Bobby Boucher. He played ex-football star Paul "Wrecking" Crewe. Paul got himself into some trouble when he drunkenly stole his girlfriend's car and went on a destructive joy ride.
After he was arrested he was sentenced to a penitentiary in Texas. Dismissed and disgraced from the NFL for point shaving, his reputation didn't go so well with the other inmates. Paul is enlisted by the warden to help out the guard's football team in an exchange for not having an extra 5 years attached to his sentence for stopping a guard from beating on an inmate. Paul insists that the guards have a tune-up game and the warden gets the idea to have chosen inmates to play against the guards. With the help of his new friend dubbed "The Caretaker", played by Chris Rock, the inmates are chosen after a bit of roughing up and training begins. Burt Reynolds steps in as imprisoned veteran NFL player Nate Scarborough who agrees to help coach Paul's crew (Get it?!) Long story short, the inmates beat the crap out of the guards, Paul's point shaving past comes back to haunt him but is then over come, and the inmates win the game!
Now, those of you who have seen the film may have though that it was pretty good. I have to humbly and respectfully agree! One question always stuck out in my head after seeing the movie, well...two questions. First, why does Terry Crews always dance in every role he plays? Secondly, why Burt Reynolds? His addition as the coach seemed a little weird, while it was a good surprise to see him in the movie (obviously I didn't watch many previews), I had to keep asking myself why him. Well, any movie goers who are over the age of 45 or just very avid movie watchers may remember a little film back in 1974 called..well..The Longest Yard. This movie domestically grossed $43,008,075, which is more than the current film grossed foreign, and basically told the same exact story almost to the tee. The role of Paul Crewe was played by a young and spry actor named Burt Reynolds. Yes, the coach used to be the star (hows that for irony).
The story as I mentioned above doesn't waver much from the first movie's story. Paul Crewe gets arrested the same way, except in the old version, Paul's sentence was only for 18 months while in the remake, the sentence was for 3 years.
The role of the impressive 7 foot monster Samson stays in tact. Richard Kiel played this role in 1974 and WWE wrestler "The Great Khali" played the role in 2005. The caretaker still dies the same charred death by the psychotic pyromaniac Unger, except in the old version, Unger was a blatant homosexual and was trying to kill Crewe on his own impulse, while in the remake Unger is coerced by the guards to kill Paul, and Caretaker dies by accident. There is the same racial tension in both movies when Crewe tries to enlist some black inmates to play. The movie ends the exact same way with the warden almost shooting Crewe because he believed he was escaping, only to see that Crewe was grabbing the game ball, and the same last phrase is there when Crewe hands the ball to the warden and tells him to "Stick it in his trophy case". In the remake, some inmates douse the warden with Gatorade.
Both the original and the remake tell the same story and hold true to the same elements that made the movie a joy to watch. I see no reason to retell the story again, except if there are very good actors and directors that will be committed to telling the story as is. And hey, maybe if that happens, we will see an aged Adam Sandler as coach Nate. Then again, I don't have to see Adam giving one of the coach's talks and then blurts out a random "YOU CAN DO IT"! It's Adam Sandler, and yes it would happen!
In 2005, the world was introduced to a magical land of chocolate rivers, edible trees and grass, candies and gum that could never lose flavor, and three foot tall midgets running around and singing catchy ballads as they did away with children that had disobeyed the rules. Yup, it sounds like Willy Wonka was up to his old hi jinks again, or is it the same hi jinks just with enhanced graphics?
In 1971, Gene Wilder first took the mantle of the purple clad candy pusher, turning Willy Wonka from unknown into iconic. The movie then grossed $4,000,000 domestically and received a B rating. The movie also gained precedence because of the simultaneous opening of the actual Willy Wonka candy factory, hence is where we get our Gobstoppers, Nerds, ect. The movie was a musical and comedic hit, with left everyone humming the tune of the Oompa Loompas for decades.
Family Guy's version
Fast forward to 2005, The franchise has been remade with Johnny Depp taking hold of the purple hat. One thing to understand about Johnny Depp, he is known for playing outlandish and bizarre characters (Edward Scissorhands, Captain Jack Sparrow, Todd Sweeney), so him playing Willy Wonka meant one thing, the chocolate factory would never be the same again, ever. The movie had the same concept; 4 golden tickets were scattered world wide, 4 lucky kids with their own complexities (except for Charlie) were chosen to tour the huge factory with Willie Wonka. It is at this point, that things get interesting.
First, this Willy Wonka is not the same as he was before. He was a mixture of 25% Wonka, and 75% Michael Jackson. Throughout the movie, it was shown that Willy had some very messed up mental complexities that stemmed from the abandonment of his father. He was much ruder and mischievous than his former counterpart. The Oompa Loompas still existed, but not as the use to with orange make up and green hair. It was a loop of one man, doing many many other things. The classic Oompa songs that we cherished were did away with and replaced with catchy tunes and hilarious costumes.
There are many noticeable changes from what the predecessor, but one thing is certain, the story stayed the same. The base story line never changed and in fact, the director and writers saw fit to expand it.
Charlie and the chocolate factory offers some in depth looks into certain things that viewers, who may have seen the first movie, had questions about. It shows how Willy made first contact with the Oompas, how the children looked after being discharged from the factory (with awesome graphics) and we finally see the reason why Willy became who he was, and get to see a resolution to Willy's childhood problem. Yes, the first Willy never made it that far, but the important fact still stands, that the fans were not cheated out of one second of Willy Wonka nostalgia moments. And I dare say the changes that did occur, especially with the songs, were well needed updates.
I think that it is safe to say that Willy will not be making another on screen appearance, hopefully ever. There are some movies, that don't need remaking for fear that it just may get messed up. A risk was taken with Charlie, and they passed with flying colors. I think it's safe to let Mr. Wonka stay in his factory, and let the impressions that were given to us last a few lifetimes.
The X-Men franchise was a very successful one indeed. Having such characters as Storm, Wolverine, Beast and Cyclops come to life was nothing less than a comic nerd's fantasy. All of the X-Men movies were successful with each movie scoring higher in domestic Gross. So why should this smash success be remade? Call me old fashion, but when a story becomes somewhat established when it comes to special characters in the comics, it should stay that way in the movie. I am of course referring to Jean Gray's super powered alter ego: The Phoenix.
In the comics, the X-Men go into outer space to investigate an issue. On the way back to earth the shuttle gets damaged and everyone is in danger of dying. Jean secured everyone into the escape hatch and tried to use her telepathy to steer the ship out of danger. Being at the highest peak of her powers, she was heard by the Phoenix force, who came and inhabited her body. The escape pod landed in the Jamaica bay and the X-Men watched as Jean and the shuttle crashed in the water and sank. Before all hope was lost, Jean burst out of the water engulfed in a flaming bird aura and a new costume declaring she was the Phoenix.
In X2, there were a few but acceptable changes. For starters, Jean's powers began to fluctuate everywhere she went. She would get these power boosts, and then her eyes would start glowing with energy. At the end, she sacrificed herself to save her friends from being caved in by a rushing flood of water. As she saved her friends, Jean was shown with this flame like aura before the water over came her. At the very end, the camera looks over where Jean was buried by the water and you could see something coming to the surface which looked like a bird. The final scene excited fans to no end, and prepared us for the third one, which was going to be the entrance of the Phoenix. Everyone had played the triumphant burst from the water and a new form fitting suit. What we got instead, was something we would have never expected.
In the third installment, The Phoenix had arrived, but lacked the super special effects that made her the fire bird vixen. Instead, viewers received a read head with a severe case of multiple personality disorder. The Phoenix had shifted to the Dark Phoenix, her evil persona that took a good while to manifest in the comics, was already ready for blood in the first few minutes. Throughout the movie, she killed Cyclops, destroyed Professor X molecule by molecule, and offed an entire army and some mutants before being put down by Wolverine. As graphically alluring it was, it strayed too far off the story for my own good.
For starters, Professor X should not have died at all. He is never killed by the Phoenix and only dies through story arc situations. Scott doesn't die either. Besides untimely deaths, the story just seemed very off. The dark Phoenix doesn't make her appearance until there is at least a good Phoenix. There is no mention of the Shi'ar empire, which is part of the reason why the Phoenix appeared. It was critical elements like this that robbed movie goers of their escalated experience from X-Men 2.
Obviously due to the domestic Gross, there are alot who think other wise, but there were a bunch of folks who went to see the movie because of the previous hype, only to be let down by the lack luster story. It also doesn't help that there was a director switch for the third movie, which served as a main reason for why everything shifted so suddenly. I believe that this movie is due for a re-do with a better storyline and the graphics that X-Men fans were cheated out of. The series may need to be rebooted for this to happen, and if so, I just hope that the movies leading up to it will be just as good as the first two original movies.
Foreign Gross: $48,134,914 Domestic Gross: $9,362,785 Yahoo User grade: C
In the summer of 2009, Dragonball fans rushed to the theater to watch the highly anticipated live action adaption: Dragonball Evolution. No one knew what to expect and not much was known about the movie's story line except it followed the events of the first Dragonball series. The movie was a huge success in Japan, and was even praised by Dragonball/Z creator Akira Toriyama. The movie itself contained cool graphics and some pretty intense fight scenes but unfortunately, that's all there was to the movie. The storyline deviated so much from the actual story, many vital characters were altered horribly or worse: not even present in the movie, and there was just a huge sense that the movie was rushed, which made it very unenjoyable, especially for anime purists.
Now, I understand that this film was a sort of re-imagining for a new generation, but whatever they were able to accomplish in the orient, they failed miserably in the U.S, by $39 million. The story of the movie followed a teenage Goku on the hunt to find the dragonballs after his grandfather was brutally killed by this green monster named King Piccolo. Piccolo is a powerful demon who has control over this destructive monster Oozaru. Oozaru has been reborn into some person but it is unknown who. There are 7 dragonballs and when all 7 are united, a powerful dragon named Shenron can be summoned and can grant one wish. Along the way Goku runs into his mentor Master Roshi, his friends Yamcha and Bulma and his future wife Chi-chi. Goku's main reason is to track down the 4 star dragonball because it was his grandpa's prized possession. After a series of events, fights, and Goku's learning of the "Air bending" technique Kamehameha, Goku finds Piccolo to do battle with him and quickly discovers that Goku is the reborn Oozaru. Using an eclipse, Piccolo brought out Goku's transformation into Oozaru, which looked like a wolf man looking beast and terrorizes his friends until they free him from the beasts form. Then Goku kills Piccolo. The dragon is summoned and all is well.
That may seem like a cool story, but it's not the story I know. First, in the anime, Goku was a child with a tail. It took him a long time to meet with everyone that was in the movie, and there were still important people missing such as Goku's best friend Krillin. Both Goku and Chi-Chi were younger and master Roshi was way older. Oozaru was never a servant to Piccolo and in fact can only be transformed into by an alien race called Saiyans, which Goku is and only when they have their tail and during a FULL MOON. The Kamehameha wave is NOT an air bending technique but rather a manipulation of energy released in waves. Air bending is from Avatar: The last Airbender. Shenron is a petite dragon in comparison to the monstrous dragon in the anime and the same goes for Oozaru. If you still need some proof, here are some videos to help.
Goku's Kamehameha and kill of Piccolo in Evolution
Goku's Anime kamehameha
Goku killing Piccolo
Evolution Shenron
Anime Shenron
Evolution Oozaru (around 1:40)
Anime Oozaru
So many differences that were made. Now the reason I say it was rushed is because graphically, it could have been way better, and there could have been a more cohesive story developed. We have graphics technology these days that are out of this world, there is no harm in making a 30 story CGI ape, unless there was no time to do so. If it was a budgeting issue, the story still could have been better. I think that they should not make talks of a sequel and redo the initial story, because if they go off base in the first movie, how much so in the next? It worked for The Hulk, it can work for this! If I could suggest anything, I would say turn dragonball into a live action series, with the proper story line since Dragonball itself is so extensive. If it were to be put on a cable network and run an hour at a time, they could get far and not have to rush and cram. We still get the live action effects, and they get to have a successful production. I in no way am condemning the acting abilities, because everyone did a fair job (especially Piccolo), but, when you have such a crappy story, everyone suffers.
