Accordimg to Deadline, in the CW’s “Arrow,” based upon Green Arrow, an emerald-costumed archer from DC Comics, the title character is being played by Stephen Amell. I recall him from “Screamers: The Hunting,” and hope that he brings more to the role than than what he exhibited in that film, which was a woodenness that made Keanu Reeves seem almost effusive.
I don’t know Taylor Lautner, and while I don’t think too much of some of the roles he has chosen up to this point, I get the feeling that he knows a train wreck when he sees one (despite the appearance that, because of lackluster box office for Lautner’s “Abduction,” that this project fell apart on its own).
What I am referring to is that, according to Deadline, Universal Pictures will no longer be working on the Stretch Armstrong feature film, though Relativity is picking up this movie equivalent of kryptonite for some reason.
My question is: What took them so long to reach such a logical decision? We’re talking about STRETCH ARMSTRONG, quite possibly one of the goofiest characters in history of action figures! That’s almost as bad as a movie based upon a board game like, I don’t know, Battleship!
Oh, wait a minute…
Anyway, if this movie were going to the route of an “Inspector Gadget,” perhaps I could see it, but I am not at all sure that Lautner has the acting chops to carry a comedy, which implies that this film would be primarily an action film.
As a fan of “The Walking Dead” and other things of a horrific nature (I am also fond of HP Lovecraft and his Cthulhu Mythos, though truth be told I prefer the writing of August Derleth, who unlike HP Lovecraft treated humans as if they were actually more than a food source) I sometimes wonder what I would do if there were a zombie infestation.
I was brought up on the George Romero, slow, shambling, zombies, not the nonsensical, sprinting variety of Zach Snyder‘s remake, which are (strangely enough) more athletic than the living people they happen to be chasing.
I understand that we’re talking about zombies–which depart the realm of logic by their very existence–but a sprinting zombie implies to me energy, and joints that remain pliable, which doesn’t quite make sense. Slow zombies make a little more sense because shambling is all they can do to just keep moving.
The most terrible thing about zombies–other than they being dead, walking about and trying to eat you– is the fact that in movies there are so many of them that the odds aren’t great that you would survive for too long.
In my zombie survival scenario–Yes, I have a zombie survival scenario, though what you should be asking is why you don’t–I rally the people that live in my building, my moxie and bravery making me a natural leader. Once we iron out our differences, we go from floor to floor, clearing out any undead that we happen to find.
Once my building is secure, from our building we move till others, till we reclaim our block, and so on.
An anti-zombie plague, if you will.
It appears that I am not the only one who sees how relatively easy it would be to beat zombies, which is why Cracked’s 7 Scientific Reasons A Zombie Outbreak Would Fail (Quickly) are particularly enlightening.
Rememeber the idea behind 1993’s “Jurassic Park?’ The film, based upon a novel by Michael Crichton, directed by Steven Spielberg, revolves around an island where dinosaurs are brought back to life from the DNA of mosquitoes caught in amber.
Our technology hasn’t quite advanced that far, though we’re getting close, yet I am willing to bet that these people at an Australian museum don’t mind the difference.
Though these dinosaurs will never have the have the problems of their Jurassic Park brethren, there’s always “Westworld” to worry about.
This movie has a title, like “John Dies At The End,” that pretty much tells you what’s going to happen at some point in the movie. That being said, I think that I care just a bit more as to why John dies as opposed to what some man is doing on a ledge.
Though the question remains: What is he doing on a ledge? Does he serve as a distraction for a diamond robbery, as the trailer seems to imply? Is there something more going on?
Rotten Tomatoes has given it a 22%, and the Washington Post Express doesn’t think too much of it either.
The most interesting thing about this film for my money is that it is probably one of the last films from Summit Pictures that came into being prior to its purchase by Lionsgate.
Just wanted to remind everyone that Starz content on Netflix will vanish after Tuesday of next week, which means that movies like “Breaking Away,” “Tron: Legacy,” and “Silver Streak,” to name a few, will not longer be available.
Despite this fact, it appears that the subscriber flight over the Quikster debacle, as well as the last price increase, has abated, bringing with it a stabilization in the amount of subscribers to the service that has beat estimates.
It also appears that Reed Hastings, the Netflix’s CEO, is relaxing his company’s overseas expansion, which means that concerns that it is expanding to new territories too quickly should also decline.
Tasmanian Tigers (which are not related to cats, and are actually marsupials, like kangaroos) are believed to have gone extinct in 1936, though there are some that believe that they still exist in the wilds of Tasmania.
It strikes me as fascinating that it could possibly be alive today, which is why I am surprised that in films that revolve around the animal it is often treated as a tertiary, as opposed to a primary, motivator for action. That was the case in 2008’s “Dying Breed,” a horror movie that in a very peripheral fashion revolved around the animal, using it more as a metaphor for a culture, a way of life that was dying, than anything really to do with the creature itself.
So now we have “The Hunter,” and if I can judge from the trailer, it appears to be doing the same thing, though “Dying Breed” didn’t have superstars like Willem Dafoe or Sam Neill to bring to the party.
That being said, I think its kind of lame that the animal itself doesn’t appear to take a greater role because I would really like to see a movie about the trials and tribulations involved with a search for a living, breathing Tasmanian Tiger.
What I often hear from people who enjoy the films under the Marvel Studios banner–”Iron Man,” “Thor,” “The Incredible Hulk” and the upcoming “Avengers,” among others–is: Why it is that characters like Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, or the X-Men are being done by Sony and Twentieth Century Fox–who have shown a tendency to frak them up–instead of the studio that’s run by the people that actually had something to do with creating the characters and would be more likelier to respect their fans and stories?
Marvel, before they moved into motion pictures, were not always as successful as they are now, and as a result had to sell the rights of some of their most popular characters to bring in needed revenue.
This was, of course, before being purchased by Disney.
Before anyone critizes their decision, you have to keep in mind that if they didn’t manage to survive, not only would there be no movies done by Marvel, but the company could have potentially been taken over by another comic company.
Like DC, for instance.
ScreenRant three years ago published a listing of which studios owned which Marvel characters, which I am lucky that they decided to reprint and goes a long way toward explaining why “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was such a mess (other than Gavin Hood directing, that is, because that film was screwed long before Hood came into the picture).
Don Coscarelli has never been what one would call a prolific director (his last film was 2002’s “Bubba Ho-Tep,” though he directed the “Masters of Horror” episode, “Incident On and Off A Mountain Road” in 2005) but he’s at least an interesting one. His films tend to be a bit uneven, but strange enough to overlook such shortcomings (unlike in the case of fellow director Tobe Hooper).
In reference to “Bubba Ho-Tep” I haven’t seen it because I couldn’t get my head around the initial concenpt, which had something to do with Elvis hiding out at a rest home, monsters, and Ozzy Davis as John F. Kennedy, Jr. (?), if I recall.
There’s a rumor that Jon Bernthal, who plays Shane Walsh on AMC’s zombie series, is leaving the show soon. Not unusual on the face of it, people leave television shows all the time, even successful ones.
But when the show he’s supposedly to be going to, L.A. Noir, is being developed by…wait for it….Frank Darabont, things get a bit more interesting.
Karma’s a bitch.