Test Screening Review of Paul

Since the entertaining 30-minute presentation of “Paul” at this year’s Comic-Con, I’ve been anticipating the film’s arrival in theaters. The panel at Geek mecha was comprised of Greg Mottola, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Jason Bateman, Seth Rogen, Jeffrey Tambor and the illustrious Sigourney Weaver. The banter amongst the talent was amusing; not only was I clued in on how fun it was to work on the project, but also the film’s quality, which I assumed to be fantastic since all involved had total faith I wouldn’t be let down.

I was impressed by what little was teased. Knowing what Pegg and Frost were capable of from their previous work, I expected the clips to be funny and they were. Plus, it was cool to discover the writers created the film in tribute to sci-fi fans and Comic-Con geeks like myself. So, when I got the invite for “Paul” last week, of course I made sure my schedule was clear. As one would have anticipated for a screening like this, the theater was packed. Demographic wise, I’d say the test audience was comprised of 18- to 35-year-olds — mostly male.

Now, onto the good stuff. If you’re not familiar with the movie’s plot, here’s a brief run down. “Paul” is about an alien held captive by the U.S. Government after his ship crashed some time in the 1940s. Fast forward to today: Paul breaks out of his imprisonment but ends up crashing the car he fled in during the process. Enter Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost), a couple of extra-terrestrial enthusiasts on a road trip across America to the most popular UFO landmarks. The geeky pair aid the runaway alien on his quest for freedom.

I know this all sounds very pedestrian, but leave it to the geniuses behind “Hot Fuzz” and “Shaun of the Dead” to make such a simple story anything but. “Paul” was simply hilarious and in some ways sentimental. Don’t let the latter scare you away, however. Pegg and Frost are very aware of their target audience; so don’t expect any scenes created just for the sole purpose of making a person verklempt. “Paul” isn’t that kind of movie.

What it is, however, is a humorous road trip with a foul-mouthed alien and two blokes whose dreams of making first contact with a Grey comes to pass by accident.

Come to think of it, Paul was sorta green.

… but I digress.

Everything works pretty much. I’ll get to what didn’t for me in a moment. But let’s start with the pros.

Everyone in the cast was pretty fantastic. But the stand-out for me was not the alien. It was Jason Bateman. He’s a bit of a badass in “Paul” and surprisingly he does badass well. Bill Hader of SNL fame and Joe Lo Truglio from “Reno 911” play the two remaining agents, whose modern-day slapstick routine will have audiences rolling and Jeffrey Tambor’s cameo provides a good chuckle. Kristin Wiig as a self-righteous religious person is definitely amusing, but I had some issues with her, which I’ll get to in my cons. Seth Rogen’s voice work wasn’t bad, but again, more in cons. However, the pair that completed the film was, of course, Pegg and Frost. No, I haven’t forgotten about Sigourney Weaver. She was amazing and she looks it, too, but she’s mostly heard and not seen.

The issues I had with the film don’t outweigh the fun I had while watching. I can ignore the fact that I found Seth’s voice, although adequate, rather bland. I can overlook Kristin Wiig’s sometimes-annoying characterization of a zealot. And, lastly, I can definitely cast aside any problems I felt about the editing since, after all, what I viewed was a rough cut. I’m sure the glitches will be fixed long before the movie’s release.

All in all, “Paul” is a cleverly written and well-directed film and it’s a must see for sci-fi and comic-book fans. It’s a movie that will sit with you. I myself have been thinking of certain scenes a week after the screening. That being said, I’ll definitely see the finished product on March 18 next year when the film officially opens. I’m sure many of my fellow fanboys and girls will do the same and it’s doubtful they will be disappointed.

Read More

Warner Bros. Re-Booting ‘Buffy’ Without Joss Whedon

In the latest news of wtf-ery, Warner Bros. plans to remake “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” without Joss Whedon. The studio, which is celebrating “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow’s” huge box office success, purchased the rights from director Fran Rubel Kuzui and Sandollar Productions. Whit Anderson, an actress turned screenwriter whose credits are quite slim, wrote the script for the Slayer reboot.

Although Charles Roven of Atlas Entertainment says that Anderson’s approach to the iconic vampire slayer is “pretty compelling and a lot of fun,” I don’t see this working. The only Buffy fans want to see on the big screen is Whedon’s — not some weak copy and that is exactly what Anderson’s version will be. What I want to know is what does Warner Bros have against Joss Whedon?

First it was “Angel.” The show was abruptly canceled even though the ratings were better than “7th Heaven” at the time. Then, it was the “Wonder Woman” film project. Due to creative differences, Joss Whedon walked. Now, it’s “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” The powers that be are ignoring the fact that Joss Whedon’s brilliant, intelligent and funny writing, along with Sarah Michelle Gellar’s perfect acting, is why the series was so successful and has a huge following today.

News like this makes me wish Whedon’s “The Avengers” beats the hell out of “Green Lantern” at the box-office, and from the spots I’ve seen of “Green Lantern,” I don’t think that will be hard to do.

Read More

‘Harry Potter’: Seven Films Down, One to Go

My world has been forever changed since J.K. Rowling introduced me to “The Boy Who Lived” back in 1998. It is through Harry Potter that I’ve discovered witches and wizards and learned of a special academy that trained them. Like many, after finishing the first book, “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” — or “Philosopher’s Stone,” as it is so rightly named in the U.K. — I became immediately transfixed with the World of Wizardry. “Chamber of Secrets” couldn’t have been written fast enough and although I found it to be the weakest of the series, I still enjoyed it. Then came “The Prizoner of Azkaban”; different in tone, it alluded to the dark times ahead for Harry.

It was during this time I learned these series of magical books would be transferred to film. J.K. Rowling had struck a monumental deal with Warner Bros and by 2001, the film adaptation for the first novel premiered respectfully in London first then the U.S.

I was both excited and apprehensive, as film adaptations often fail to encompass the essence of the source material. However, with Chris Columbus at the helm, I was slightly relieved. But what of the kids? Who would play Hermione Granger, Ron Weasley and, most importantly, Harry Potter? Understandably, casting was extensive. Columbus and President Alan Horn of Warner Bros. understood the importance of finding the perfect actors since much of their young lives would be consumed by this role.

Interesting enough, Daniel Radcliffe’s parents turned down the role of Harry Potter from fear such a major undertaking would ruin his childhood. Little did they know then it would do the opposite. Having found the ideal Hermione in a studious Emma Watson and the perfect Ron in a playful Rupert Grint, producer David Heyman still needed the perfect Potter. Thankfully, Heyman was able to convince Radcliffe’s parents to allow their son to screen test for the part, which, of course, the then 11-year-old landed.

J.K. Rowling, upon watching the screen test, told Columbus, “That’s how I always imagined Harry Potter.”

The rest, as they say, is history.

“Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone” was not only a commercial success but also a critical one and filming for “Chamber of Secrets” was well under way. It was crucial to film each installment back to back because young actors, as they often do, grow rather quickly.

Yet, by the time the third film began production, the Potter family suffered a great loss in the death of Richard Harris, who lost his battle with Hodgkins Disease. Who could possibly replace him? After circling Christopher Lee, Ian McKellan and Peter O’ Toole, Sir Michael Gambon was chosen. Not a bad choice by any means, although some die-hard fans feel Gambon’s portrayal of Dumbledore lacked warmth.

In “The Prisoner of Azkaban” — the most critically-acclaimed film of the series — Radcliffe, Watson and Grint were noticeably more confident as actors. This fact proved challenging at times to director Alfonso Cuaron, a newcomer to the Potter -verse. But he welcomed the trio’s questions because who knew the characters better than themselves? Incidentally, it was with Cuaron’s direction along with an assignment, which required the three to write a paper about themselves in character, that further assisted with character development. True to form, Emma Watson turned in a 30-page paper, Radcliffe’s was about half that. Grint didn’t bother to do it at all. When asked why, Rupert said that Ron wouldn’t have done it. Ah, yes, perfect casting.

“Goblet of Fire,” helmed by Mike Newell, another newbie, is where we encounter the death of a student. By now, the kids are no longer kids but teen-agers and their skills have strengthened considerably. The acting is impressive and the chemistry between Radcliffe, Watson and Grint is undeniable.

The precedent for new directors was well established, but David Yates broke the pattern by “Order of the Phoenix,” as he remained on board for “Half-Blood Prince” and both parts of “Deathly Hallows.” As each book became darker and bleaker, so did each film, and under Yates’ direction, the movies stayed true to Rowling’s work … for the most part. Some fans voiced distress with the condensing of “Half-Blood Prince.” But with “Deathly Hallows” broken up into two parts, followers of Potter needn’t feel alarmed.

Watching Radcliffe, Watson and Grint grow over the past decade has been almost as moving and exciting as watching the films. Thankfully, none have fallen to the pressures of Hollywood and have kept out of trouble. As for future projects for the trio, Radcliffe is continuing to act in film and onstage. The stage production of “How to Succeed in Business Without Even Trying” opens next spring and “The Woman In Black” will hit theaters some time next year. Watson is attending Brown University and is enjoying a normal life away from Harry Potter. Rupert Grint just finished “Eddie The Eagle,” a film about England’s first ski-jumper to enter the Winter Olympics.

This recap wouldn’t be complete without mentioning the composers who have worked on each film. Out of them all, John Williams is the most recognizable and his brilliant “Hedwig’s Theme” happens to be my ringtone. Patrick Doyle, Nicolas Hooper and Alexandre Desplat deserve a mention because their great work is on par with Williams and helps to further engross the viewer into the magical realm J.K. Rowling created.

The success of the “Harry Potter” films and books can easily be attributed to the bit of realism interwoven into fantasy. From the very beginning, you are rooting for Harry. He’s easy to relate too and so are his best friends Hermione and Ron. It is because of this relatability that millions will flock to theaters world wide to see how their story ends.

I will be one of them.

“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1” opens today. Be sure to catch it.

Read More

‘Wolverine’ Sequel Gets a New Title

So, the sequel to “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” won’t be called “Wolverine 2.” Instead Darren Aronofsky confirmed that the new title will be “The Wolverine.” Upon hearing this news, I’ve decided to erase any remnants of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” from the recesses of my brain because, let’s face it, that film was pretty bad.

Even Hugh Jackman conceded to fan disillusionment, admitting it could have been better. Thankfully, with Aronofsky directing the sequel, there is hope. The title change alone alludes to not only a change in tone but quality.

Finally, we will get to see the ass-kicking, full of rage Wolverine from the comics. Set in Japan, if the script is canon, fans are in for a rich storyline filled with action and heartache. Since this is the second project Aronofsky and Jackman have worked on together (after “The Fountain”), I envision the director will inspire Jackman to give yet another emotional performance .

More can be read about Aronofsky’s new approach to the second Wolverine movie atHitFix.com.

Read More

Trailer Talk: ‘Kung Fu Panda 2′ (Teaser Version)

One word comes to mind after watching the teaser trailer for “Kung Fu Panda 2: The Kaboom of Doom”: HILARIOUS. Just as the trailer dictates, the awesomeness returns next summer and if the sequel is as amusing as this teaser, the second film will be as funny as the first. The characterization of Po is as vibrant as ever and his movements, fluid. Perhaps another Academy nomination is in the future for his Dreamworks.

Kung Fu staring contest!

Oh, those witty writers. I wonder if Jack Black came up with that bit himself. Speaking of which, of course he’s back to voice Po and also returning is The Furious Five voiced by Angelina Jolie (Tigress), Lucy Liu (Viper), Jackie Chan (Monkey), Seth Rogen (Mantis) and David Cross (Crane). But wait, that’s not all! Rounding out the amazing voice talent are the outstanding Dustin Hoffman and Gary Oldman, martial artist and actress Michelle Yeoh and the legendary James Woods. Jean-Claude Van Damme is also listed amongst the impressive cast.

I think the plot for “Kaboom of Doom” sounds great. Now that Po is a Dragon Warrior a new villain emerges whose goal is to rule China and destroy Kung Fu. Oldman is the voice behind the baddie named Lord Shen, which makes me all the more anxious to see this movie.

“Kung Fu Panda 2” opens May 27, 2011.

Read More

A New TV Spot for ‘The Tourist’ Makes a Visit

A new TV spot for “The Tourist” debuted Friday and it’s slightly different than the trailer. Removed from the 30-second teaser is any sequences which could be misconstrued as comedic and the music isn’t a rock song by Muse. Even with these changes, I’m still not jazzed about this film when I probably should be.

The Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck film stars two of the most sought-after actors working — Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie — and a good portion of the movie was shot in beautiful Venice. Still, despite these tantalizing factors, the film hasn’t won me over.

Maybe the reason behind my disenchantment is the fact that both principal actors don’t exactly look their best here. Depp looks bloated, Jolie too skinny. In addition to the physical letdown, the Elise character appears to mirror Jolie’s outward persona and Frank, although different than Depp’s eccentric roles, isn’t all that interesting.

However, I’m holding out hope the film will surprise since it was directed by Donnersmarck, who won an Academy Award for “The Lives of Others.” After all, the film is a remake of the French movie “Anthony Zimmer.” Perhaps the director chose specific sequences in both the trailer and TV spot to mislead the audience. But as of now, the film seems to be all glam with no substance.

We shall soon see if my pessimism is warranted. “The Tourist” opens nation-wide Dec. 10.

Read More