I AIN'T AFRAID OF NO GHOSTBUSTERS 3

Ghostbusters quotes


The other week Drew McWeeny over at Hit Fix asked the following question:

“Do you really want to see Ghostbusters 3?"

In the article that followed he tried to convince us that before we said an automatic geek fueled 'Hell yes!' we should take a moment, weigh up the real, actual Hollywood business model pros and cons before then coming to the eventual answer of 'No.' His argument was predicated on the idea that in order to make the film, to satisfy the many differing requirements (four quadrant movie making – selling toys, fast food/sponsorships, paying talent/back end deals) what we'd end up with would be some ghastly bastardization of a much loved classic. A pale and unfunny imitation. You know, kinda like R.I.P.D.

Drew is right. I don't wanna see that. At all. Who would?

But I like to keep a glimmer of hope alive in my heart. Just a small spark of light fighting the good fight against cynicism and low expectations.

Maybe, just maybe we could get a new Ghostbusters movie done right.

Of course 'done right' depends very much on your own personal take. Many would argue that you simply can't do another GB movie without the original line up, especially Bill Murray. Twenty years ago I would have shared that same view. But not now. Not after all this time has passed. Don't get me wrong. I adore Murray, Ramis, Aykroyd et al but the world they created is so darn good, has so much potential that it can and should live beyond them. And anyway, Murray has shown epic disinterest in the project for decades now meaning it just ain't gonna happen with him. End of. Plus the recent sad passing of Harold Ramis has now made the 'getting the old gang back together' approach a non-starter anyway. So it's a no then to that approach.

But I don't want a remake either. Or a reboot or whatever you wanna call it.

No, what I want is a continuation, only with new characters and a wider universe to explore. That's not to say the old crew can't also appear in some shape or form. Of course they can. And they should if they want to. Personally I love the franchise idea Drew posits in his article. One that builds off of the first two films. I mean, the guys float the idea themselves in the original movie saying that the franchise rights alone could make them rich. So lets see it. Lets see other teams of Ghostbusters around the US, around the world. Some good, some bad, some screw ups, some amazing. Mix it up. Expand the universe. Go play. Go crazy. Franchise doesn't have to be a dirty word. Not here. When done right it can be the best thing ever. When done wrong it can be Transformers.

Opening the Ghostbusters concept up to go international and inter-dimensional is the way to go I say. I've always thought the concept was so awesome and so potentially huge that it could live well beyond the original movie if handled right. I mean, you could create a truly weird and funny Marvel-ous kinda universe full of monsters, ghosts, inter-dimensional worlds and beings and different groups of Earth-based Ghostbusters who work on their own or team up for various crazy missions. And with the right actors, writers, directors it could be really fun, funny and spectacular.

Okay, glimmer of hope starting to fade. Cynical hat coming back on.

Sadly I fully expect that when a new Ghostbusters does get made - and rest assured folks, we WILL get one at some point - it'll probably be a remake/reboot, a bland corporate ghost of its former self and a complete waste of potential. But we'll see. I'll still hope for the best and will keep everything crossed...except for the streams of course. Never cross the streams. Because crossing the streams is bad.

Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

RIP Harold Ramis

Dark Shadows aka Depp Gets to be Weird Again

Trailer for Dark Shadows (2012)


Trailer for House of Dark Shadows (1970)

Dark Shadows is director Tim Burton and star Johnny Depp’s latest film collaboration. And while it’s not their best (Ed Wood) it certainly isn’t their worst (Alice in Wonderland anybody? No? Okay.)

Based on a US supernatural daytime soap from the 60’s, Dark Shadows follows Barnabas Collins, a cursed vampire imprisoned in a coffin for two hundred years, who is accidentally freed in the year 1972. Finally freed from his centuries old prison, Barnabas sets about helping his descendants in the small New England fishing town of Collinsport rebuild the once great Collins family name and business empire. Unfortunately for Barnabas the witch who cursed him back in the 1770’s is still around in the delectable form of Eva Green and is currently running the town through her own business empire, much of it poached from what the now faded Collins’ family once had. Cue goofy fish out of water fun as Barnabas negotiates his way around 1972 and its many strange social and technical advances while also scheming and plotting to get the family business back on top. Not to mention getting his revenge on nasty/sexy Eva Green. Amidst all these shenanigans the old world vamp also manages to fall for the Collins’ new governess Victoria Winters who bears an uncanny resemblance to the woman he loved long ago and who killed herself while under evil witch Eva’s spell.

If this all sounds like some bad soap opera, well, um, that’s cuz it is.

Now I’ve not seen the original Dark Shadows but I have seen the early 90’s revival and one of the two 70’s movies adapted from the show. And Burton and Depp’s movie sticks pretty close to the main storylines of both: the fading dysfunctional family, Barnabas falling for Victoria, Dr Hoffman’s devious actions, the nasty witch. All present and correct.

But does this new version work as a movie? Yes and no.

I enjoyed Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows. A fair bit. I enjoy Burton’s obvious affection for gothic melodrama. I can relate. I was brought up watching old Hammer horror films - a clear influence on Tim B, especially in Sleepy Hollow, The Corpse Bride, Sweeney Todd and now Dark Shadows (and why Christopher Lee cameos in most of ‘em). I enjoy the aesthetic. Also I’m pretty sure that if the original Dark Shadows had been on TV over here in the UK when I was a kid, then I, like Burton and Depp, would have been hooked too. But a movie is not a TV soap opera. Burton’s movie, like a TV soap opera, has many plot lines and subplots, all lifted from the series. Unlike a TV show, though, a movie is constrained by certain narrative needs and a running time. That’s not to say that multiple plot lines, character arcs etc. can’t be done well in a movie. They can. Look what Joss has just achieved with The Avengers: multiple story strands, character arcs, set ups and payoffs all perfectly balanced and effortlessly successful. Not a minute of screen time is wasted. Unfortunately the same can’t be said for Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows. Here various story elements feel short changed, rather pointless, lacking in weight.

Oddly, storywise Dan Curtis’ 1970 film House of Dark Shadows did a better job of it. Curtis’ film cut loose all the business stuff and witch revenge seen in Burton’s take. Instead it focussed on Barnabas’ escape from his two hundred year imprisonment, ingratiating himself in to the family by posing as a distant cousin from England while slowly sucking his way through the locals and trying to woo the family’s governess who reminds him of his long lost love. In Curtis’ film Barnabas is a tragic, reluctant monster. But a monster nonetheless who wilfully kills out of need, lust and anger, stopping at nothing to get the woman he thinks he loves. Original actor Jonathan Frid imbued his Barnabas with a cold, ruthless charm and noble theatrical viciousness. Quite effectively. In the new movie, Depp’s Barnabas is a funny, weird oddball who even though he does kill never really comes across as a dangerous monster. He isn’t selfish or cruel, which, from what I saw, Frid’s version most certainly was. Curtis’ 1970 film is far from perfect. It is cheesy (especially to our modern jaded eyes) and relentlessly old fashioned. But it does have atmosphere, a couple of ok scares, some cool Dick Smith make-up, and Frid being coldly creepy in the lead. It also has a more focussed narrative than Burton’s all-over-the-place remake.

In the end, Burton’s film might not hang together too well, but at least I was never bored and laughed a fair bit while loving the gorgeous photography and art direction. The entire cast were great too, especially oddball Depp, sexy Eva and the wonderfully sneering teen angst of Chloe Moretz. I also dug the overall 70's vibe (loved the opening credits to the Moody Blues while tracking Victoria's journey to Collinsport). And any film with Alice Cooper singing No More Mr Nice Guy scores at least some points in my book. But it is Depp who holds it all together. He might not have the cold menace of Frid but his Barnabas is a nicely oddball/weird/silly reluctant fish-out-of-water who's trying to do the right thing despite having to kill the odd hippie or ten.

Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows ain't perfect and is perhaps a little too slavish to its soap opera origins to make for a strong film in its own right, but I had a pretty good time with it. On the Burton scale it's perhaps one notch down from Sleepy Hollow, which to my mind is a movie that gets the weird/silly/creepy Burtonesque balance just about right. 3.5 (out of 5)

The Crow: A Future Remake to Ruffle Some Feathers

The Crow: Descent (ft Foo Fighters) One of the best fan vids ever.

And so the new film adaptation of James O’Barr’s classic and much loved (by me and many, may others) graphic novel The Crow gets its new director after the last one, Stephen (Blade, LXG) Norrington, left over creative differences. The new megaphone wielder is 28 Weeks Later’s Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Now I’ve no idea what the rest of Fresnadillo’s work is like but I thought 28 Weeks Later was excellent and almost as good as Danny Boyle’s now iconic original. So consider me reasonably happy.

But what this turn of events has done is once again bring in to question the continuing and seemingly unstoppable trend of Hollywood remakes and reboots. Many are crying foul over this practice with much wailing and gnashing of teeth from rabid fans about what they see as soon to be bastardised ruination of their own individual beloved materials. I’m guilty of this too, mostly around the upcoming Buffy remake. I also initially cried foul over Matt Reeves’ remaking Let the Right One In being that the Swedish original is a movie I love dearly and feel a great deal of protectiveness towards, just as I do with Buffy. However I quickly realised that as far as LTROI goes I was just being silly. The new film wasn’t going to harm or take from me the original. In fact, if I were really lucky I might even get two slightly different but equally brilliant versions of the same story. And that’s almost exactly what happened. I still prefer LTROI but Matt Reeves’ film is a worthy take on John Ajvide Lindqvist’s excellent novel and a great film in its own right.

Buffy, however, is a different story.

Just to be clear I’m not morally opposed to a Buffy reboot/remake sometime down the line. After all, the classic TV show was itself a remake/reboot of the original crappy 1992 movie. No, what I object to about this particular planned reboot is that Buffy, as (re) established by her creator Joss Whedon after his original script was fecked up by the 1992 film’s inept producers and director, is still ongoing and still popular. Her story is still being told by Joss and co. in a highly successful comic book series. What also really grinds my gears is the lack of total and utter respect for Joss in all of this. He was never even consulted about the proposed new movie let alone invited to work on it. I realise I’m probably being precious and over protective here. In fact, I know that I am. I can’t help it.

Yikes! And now I’ve gone off on a complete tangent.

I wasn’t intending to babble on about the Buffster and the unfairness of it all, honestly! No, this was supposed to be primarily about The Crow, and how, oddly, I don’t find myself objecting to this planned new film version.

Right then, so, back to the main point of this blog.

The Crow is a movie I love a great deal and is one of my all time faves. It’s a simple, mythic, darkly violent and tragic fairytale…with a bloody great soundtrack and an iconic central performance. I also love J O’Barr’s original graphic novel, which is a fair bit different to the 1994 movie, though the darkly poetic mood, as well as the pain and fury that burns up every single page is perfectly captured in Alex Proyas’s film. But what Proyas’s film also has at its heart to help lessen the almost overpowering fury and despair of the book is a strong, positive celebration of love and a belief that darkness and evil will not win out in the end. That love will indeed prevail.

The biggest problem I foresee for any new adaptation of The Crow is that the character and story of Eric Draven is so intrinsically linked to the late great Brandon Lee and to the tragedy that befell him on set. I can see one gigantic crow-shaped shadow getting ready to swoop in over anyone else taking on that particular role and telling that particular story. But this is not an insurmountable obstacle. An uncomfortable one probably, but not insurmountable. Already there has been the short-lived 1998/99 TV series The Crow: Stairway to Heaven with Marc Decascos as Draven. And despite that show not working (losing the film’s hard, violent edge in exchange for safe TV heroics and replacing the dark, oppressive, stylish look with flat photography and bland Canadian locations) Decascos did do a good job as Eric. But because the show made little to no impact it is mostly forgotten now.

To say again I really, honestly don’t have a problem with someone else at least having a go at making their own adaptation of O’Barr’s book and putting their own spin on it just as Proyas did with his film. It’s a simple, great story, a mythic, human story. One that deserves to be retold as all great stories do so long as its soul and its meaning is kept intact. Hopefully this new version will be good (unlike the lousy sequels) and I and other fans will enjoy it the same way that we can happily enjoy the many film and/or TV adaptations of other classic books and stories that keep on getting made.

However there is a caveat. Don’t try and make it in to a continuing franchise with Eric as the ongoing hero. His story is simple and final. Come the end he gets his peace, he gets to be with Shelley.

But whatever happens, for me at least, the original film of The Crow with Brandon Lee’s perfomance as Eric Draven and Alex Proyas’ directorial vision will always remain the definitive depiction of the character and story outside of O’Barr’s book. It just has so much genuine power behind it through the way it is told and the events surrounding it. But where I part company with many other fans is that that should not stop others from being able to retell O’Barr’s tale in their own distinctive way, to hopefully let it connect with new and future generations.

The Crow should continue to fly.

GRR ARGH! Jossless Buffy gets the (re)boot.

Oh balls!

It’s official. Atlas Entertainment has announced via press release that they are “…rebooting the beloved franchise, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with Warner Bros. Pictures.” Charles Roven and Steve Alexander will produce the new film alongside Doug Davison and Roy Lee of Vertigo Entertainment. Whit Anderson is writing the script. And who be Whit? Apparently she is a young actress with no script writing credits and only three minor acting credits. But who knows, she may turn out to be a great writer. Doubtful I know, but we can but hope.

Producer Roven said:

“Whit approached us with an exciting idea about how to update Buffy. There is an active fan base eagerly awaiting this character’s return to the big screen. We’re thrilled to team up with Doug and Roy on a re-imagining of Buffy and the world she inhabits. Details of the film are being kept under wraps, but I can say while this is not your high school Buffy, she’ll be just as witty, tough, and sexy as we all remember her to be.”

Crap!

And there was me thinking that the proposal from earlier this year by the original film’s producers to reboot Buffy sans Joss had died a death. Apparently not.

Double crap!

Based on that quote from Roven, Atlas and Warner Bros appear to have no clue as to what the vast majority of Buffy fandom wants. Yes, Buffy fandom is big, active and still growing. Yes, we have been eagerly awaiting her return to the screen (big or small).

But not like this.

If Roven and co. really wants to know what fandom thinks then he needs to check out the most active fan sites such as SlayAlive. Sure, a few on there seem intrigued, some just dismissive. But the majority by a mile are openly hostile to his plans. The main point of hostility being that Joss Whedon, Buffy’s creator and all round genius, is not involved. Nor does it sound like he was even approached.

The truth of it is that Warner and Atlas only have the rights to the name and character of Buffy and to characters and events in the dire 1992 movie which they’ve licensed from the dreaded Kaz and Fran Kazui, producer and director respectfully of that movie. They have access to nothing of the classic TV show's characters and situations as that all resides with Fox and Joss. So this new take will either be a rehash of the original movie or some entirely new story/mythology about a girl called Buffy who kills vampires. And it doesn’t even sound like it’ll be a high school thing either. Maybe she’ll be a cute blond twentysomething waitress in a southern bar with special powers and who falls in love with a broody vampire. Hang on a sec…

If this all sounds like I’m being rather too precious and protective, then you’re right, I am. Damn straight I'm protective of Buffy. And I make no apologies for being that way.

Joss's Buffy is one of the few things in pop culture I do feel immensely protective of. She is Joss’s creation, his avatar as he described her. Despite many writers providing her words it was always Joss’s voice that came through. She’s his girl. End of.

And just so you know, I’m not one of those angry fanboys who bemoan all remakes and reboots. As I’ve said before in previous blog posts, I'm not morally opposed to them. Some of the best films and TV have been remakes and reboots. Buffy itself was a reboot of the failed movie. But I only agree with them when there is artistic merit. Not just for pure financial gain. Another Buffy reboot by others in the distant future post-joss would be fine. But to actively do it while the guy is still writing Buffy (seasons 8 & 9 comics) and while its fandom is still so big and active and vocal is just plain disrespectful to Joss and to the millions of the Slayer’s fans all around the world. It comes across as nothing but a cynical cash grab aimed at the Twilight generation.

Some comments I’ve seen have compared this yucky turn of events to JJ Abrams reboot of Star Trek.

I say no. Not the same.

I thought Abrams’ Trek reboot was brilliant. But there’s a big difference here. Roddenberry is long gone and by the time Abrams came to it, the Trek franchise had been done to death, and, in my opinion, pretty shabbily treated in its latter years with the likes of Enterprise, Insurrection and Nemesis. It needed a reboot in order to survive. And a good one at that. And thanks to JJ and co. that is exactly what it got. Also, Abrams reboot is still very much a part of the classic Trek universe (though a universe now altered by time travel). It has the same characters, situations and is linked by Nimoy's Spock Prime which gives the whole thing instant credibility.

So there you go. Those are my thoughts on this grim turn of events for the Slayer. I just hope that whether the movie is a success or failure (critically and/or commercially) it doesn’t taint the popularity of Joss’s classic series or adversely affect its ongoing comic book continuation.

This is what Hercules, Ain’t it cool news’ TV guy had to say after reporting the news:

“Buffy fans have been craving a movie for more than a decade. Given youngsters’ insatiable lust for young-adult vampire stories of any stripe, I suspect something called “Buffy” will find its way to the big screen. It may even be good. But without Whedon working the script, it won’t be Buffy.”

And I leave the last witty, sardonic words to the man himself, taken from his email response to E-online regarding the reboot news:

“I always hoped that Buffy would live on even after my death. But, you know, AFTER. I don't love the idea of my creation in other hands, but I'm also well aware that many more hands than mine went into making that show what it was. And there is no legal grounds for doing anything other than sighing audibly. I can't wish people who are passionate about my little myth ill. I can, however, take this time to announce that I'm making a Batman movie. Because there's a franchise that truly needs updating. So look for The Dark Knight Rises Way Earlier Than That Other One And Also More Cheaply And In Toronto, rebooting into a theater near you. Leave me to my pain! Sincerely, Joss Whedon.”

Wolfman's got nards!

I saw The Wolfman last night.

Now, being the major werewolf geek that I am I was really looking forward to this and hoping that, despite the delays and reshoots and dodgy reviews, it wasn’t going to suck.

Guess what? It doesn’t suck.

Despite what some sniffy reviewers will tell you The Wolfman is a fine slice of gothic monster movie mayhem. I enjoyed it a fair bit. Okay, so it's far from a perfect film - you can see the joins where scripts have been cut and pasted together and chunks sliced out - but I did have a howling good time with its camp, gory goofiness. I loved the look of the film with the design and photography being wonderfully gothic and moody and the Rick Baker make-up as excellent as expected. The acting ranged from okay with Del Toro a bit dull when human but great when hairy, to very entertaining in Hugo Weaving to the 'I don't care cuz she's lovely' Emily Blunt. Hopkins is okay as daddy Talbot but seems to be a teensy bit bored by it all. But at least he isn’t overacting. A special shout out to Hugo Weaving as Inspector Abberline who once again reminds us just why he’s such a cool actor. His scene in the pub where he orders a beer and patiently explains to the landlady why he isn’t out hunting the killer is hilarious. Definitely channelling Agent Smith there. Apart from Agent Smith and its overall look, the best stuff in the film are the wolfman rampages - especially the first one in the gypsy camp. That was a truly great sequence where the beast is so fast and mostly in shadow and yet causes so much bloody mayhem.

So what about the actual story?

The Wolfman (2010) bares minimal resemblance to the original 1941 Universal classic with only character names and the basic set-up of estranged son returning home being the same. The new story is fine and adds a bit more depth than the original even if the resulting plot twists are fairly predictable. The pacing is good and nicely swift. Following a very obvious three-act structure, the film whips along at quite a pace with dialogue and character building being sparse so as to quickly get to the…er…guts of the story. Tonally The Wolfman takes itself seriously while also enjoying piling on the lurid bloodletting, flesh rending and limb lopping - all of which is very cool and just how a proper monster movie should be.

Now I gotta say that watching The Wolfman I wasn’t so much reminded of an old Universal horror as I was of a Hammer horror. For despite its serious tone there is also a rather camp feel to the film with its hirsute beasty climbing walls and buildings, leaping around and menacing English yokels who hang out in old taverns and race carriages through dark woods. That combined with the gleeful goofy bloodiness and Del Toro’s admitted homage to the late great Oliver Reed by sporting his haircut from Curse of the Werewolf, The Wolfman, to me, works better as a modern ode to the best of British Hammer. If only there was some heaving lady cleavage then the effect would be complete. Another good point to note is Danny Elfman’s score. It’s probably the best thing he’s done in ages. It is big and dramatic with some nice themes, the main one sounding a lot like the great main theme from Coppola’s Dracula, which helps sell the films grand gothic feel.

Anything I didn’t like? Yep, the use of CGI. The CGI transformation looks exactly how you’d expect a CGI one to look – it looks fake and cartoony. Some people will defend this. I won’t. I just don’t like it. Period. It looks exactly like what it is – computer graphics. However it could have been worse, it could have been Van Helsing. Ugh! And once Del Toro is in full on wolf mode then the CGI (mostly) goes and you get great Baker make-up and some nicely savage gore.

So, in summary, I enjoyed The Wolfman a great deal. It’s a fun ride with a few nice jump scares and a great gloomy gothic look. It zips along while revelling in its gory monster mayhem. It’s not perfect and is not the classic that the original is or comes anywhere near challenging the best werewolf movies for genre supremacy. But for a fun, bloody, gothic romp you could do a whole lot worse.



"Wolfman's got nards" quote courtesy The Monster Squad (1987) AROOOOOOOOO!