I was thinking and maybe hoping it was just one of those things that would come to pass over time. Unfortunately, The Hangover 2 appears to really be on the table.

Now, like most sane people, I quite enjoyed The Hangover. In fact, I thought it was one of the funniest movies I had seen in a significant length of time.

But, as PBF and I posited in an episode not too long ago, the idea of a sequel for The Hangover seems ill-conceived. I may not have an idea of how things in the Hollywood-world work but I know there have always been “scheduling conflicts” and “creative differences” that have prevented entire teams from previous films from reuniting for a sequel.

Also, I’ve seen Caddyshack II which should cast a shadow of doubt on any comedy sequel … ever.

The biggest draw of the original film was the outlandish scenario that was established after our leads have an eventful night and not have the slightest idea of what the hell happened and the subsequent piecing together of everything that went wrong. Will the sequel follow the same path, just in Thailand? If so, it can die in a fire.

As PBF would argue, on certain films there is an unnatural charm and chemistry that is established that is hard to replicate, no matter how hard a studio tries. If we imagine that Weekend at Bernie’s had any redeeming cinematic quality, its sequel which took the same exact premise took any gravitas, spat on it, fed it to chimps, and watched as excrement was thrown on Helen Hunt and Matthew Broderick. Does the Hangover really need to suffer that same fate?

I may be reaching to compare Hangover to Weekend at Bernie’s. That would be the equivalent of comparing Inception to … Battlefield Earth? Regardless, the point still stands.

Could it be a good and worthwhile movie? Possibly. But I’m not willing to take that chance.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

I love DVDs. Right after high school, I was buying at least a half dozen a week if not more. Yet there are several things that just pluck my nerves. This list is not in any particular order and certainly not inclusive. I am quite sure there could be a revisit to this topic eventually.

9. “Large Screen” Releases
Essentially, these are films originally in a larger aspect ration, usually 2.40:1, that are cropped during a certain group of scenes. Not only do I despise not watching movies in their original ratios, the way this was handled for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was quite poor, and I’m not only referring to the movie itself. The jump back and forth between scenes (and even different shots within the same scene) is quite jarring. I know a normal movie-goer might not notice but it is rather annoying regardless.

8. Delayed Releases
Now that Netflix and Redbox have caved to several studios’ demands to withhold new releases for almost a month after they hit DVD, the only way to see The Blind Side, Sherlock Holmes, and now Avatar on DVD is to either buy them outright or go to Blockbuster (and who really wants to do that) only to get a stripped down version lacking any extras. Not only does that make things more difficult for us at Movie Scum, Inc. to keep up with the newest films, regular consumers who might be looking for the latest generic rom-com from these studios in their normal venues might get discouraged and give up. Or if they are tech savvy enough, they will just download it illegally.

7. Cheaper DVD Cases
Back in the day, I could not stand those Warner cardboard cases but at least they fell relatively sturdy even if they just fell apart ten years later. Now, the latest trend is to take a regular case with a nice, happy recycle sign where the insert (remember those?) used to go. Allegedly, these are better for the environment as they use less plastic but every time I go to remove a disc, I feel like the whole case will either break in half or break the disc in the process of getting it out. Give me that extra three slivers of plastic back and go plant a tree or something to feel better.

6. Unskippable Previews
When I sat down to watch Sherlock Holmes, I was treated to at least eight to ten previews of some sort. They were mostly movie trailers with a few video game previews and even a non-smoking ad. The problem was the next chapter option was disabled and the only way to skip through was to fast forward. As every other preview started a new chapter which you had to then hit fast forward again, this was quite an arduous task that took about five minutes to get to the actual menu itself. So, for all the trailers and the mind-boggling thought involved, the menu did not even have a scene selection option. What the hell?

5. Stupid Floating Heads vs. Original Poster Art
There has been much written on this in other venues but it is still irritating when a perfectly good (and appropriate to the film) theatrical poster is jettisoned for the DVD release because it is not as flashy. I quite enjoy most all of the Nightmare on Elm Street series poster art (even for the crap ones) but for the single DVD releases, these awesome posters were replaced by the always popular floating heads and bad photoshop backgrounds. The same thing happened to the James Bond re-re-releases some time ago. I shudder to think of what an awesome, minimalist poster like The Thing would look like if released today.

4. Lackluster Collections
To mention the Sherlock Holmes DVD yet again, there was in one of the aforementioned trailers a collection of all of Clint Eastwood’s Warner Brothers films which actually looked quite good and thorough. However, most DVD collections leave much to be desired. This could be for a number of different reasons — lack of competing studio cooperation, lack of behind-the-scenes involvement, etc. — but most give you the same movies you can buy separately but with an additional disc for extras not available otherwise. So, you can buy all the films (including the ones you don’t want or already have) just for the bonus or miss out. And even worse, they are not “complete” collections which leave out the good stuff. I have yet to see any deleted scenes from the original Nightmare on Elm Street other than an Anchor Bay VHS from about fifteen years ago even after two collection releases and a standalone special edition. Not to mention that it took Paramount three tries (one single disc, one collection, subsequent “special-er” editions) to get decent releases of the Friday the 13th series.

3. Stupid “Special Edition” Names
I guess when you release the same movie countless times, there has to be a way to differentiate between each. Most of these DVD nomenclatures attempt to tie into the movie but, seriously? Pretty in Pink: Everything’s Duckie Edition; Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (Those Aren’t Pillows Edition); 13 Going on 30: Fun & Flirty Edition. Whatever happened to just plain old Special or Ultimate Edition? Check here for some special edition names that may or may not come to fruition.

2. Rerelease Hell
You know that little movie Avatar that is being released on DVD this week? Can’t wait to see the quadrillion dollar grossing picture in lackluster at home 3D? Ah, you’re going to have to wait as that is being withheld for another version down the line. At least (some) consumers had the knowledge going in that a better version was coming out but what about the other films that are released almost bare with the intention to release a better version down the line. Studios are all about cashing in on popular franchises so it makes sense from their end to release whatever they can as fast as they can but for those fans who want, I dunno, promised special director’s cuts or more in-depth special features, they have to either be patient and wait for the in-the-pipeline better release or buy two versions of the same movie.

1. Same Movie, Three Different DVDs
The trend used to be different version for full-screen n00bs and widescreen which made it hell to receive a DVD as a gift from someone who does not know different. While that still happens, there are now separate releases for theatrical version, bare-bones uncut version with digital version, uncut version with special features, theatrical version full screen with a commentary only available on that disc. If you want to have everything available, you have to buy at minimum two discs, if not more! Whatever happened to that awesome seemless branching thing that DVDs were advertised with back in the day to allow different versions on the same disc? Is it really that much easier to have eight different SKUs for the same movie? Damn all that.

Post-publish addendum:
Dear Disney,
Remember all of those DVDs you released in your first year or two that are non-anamorphic, bare bones releases? If you can’t at least go back and add in a commentary or something, at least clean it up so a VHS bootleg copy doesn’t look better than your product.
Sincerely,
Puck

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

While I just recently acquired The Strangers on DVD courtesy of a Hollywood Video fire sale, it is a film I had seen a year or so ago and was taken by it. We discussed it on one of our early episodes as a gripping tale of two unfortunate souls tormented by a deranged clan for the purposes of merely shits and giggles if you will. Early on after the movie debuted to impressive numbers for a horror movie in the summer, there was talk of a sequel brewing. A recent article sheds some light on the status and the story but had one truly disturbing tidbit: studio execs wanted a back story to the titular strangers.

Here’s the thing that you probably know and what studio execs apparently haven’t figured out: back stories in and of themselves can be cool but can also drag down a movie and/or franchise. Immediately, I point out the awesome Halloween as an example of back stories run amuck. The original started off great with just a shape stalking girls and descended into a convoluted series of Druid rituals and darkly dressed men in the sixth installment. While I have a soft spot for Halloween 6, the simplicity from the first was shot and drug to hell in a sea of screenwriters and abandoned ideas. But when they went back for Halloween: Resurrection (I’m not linking to that piece of shit), it was absurd that the plot line of the previous four movies, one of murdering family members, was all but jettisoned.

Now, this is not to say that all back stories are bad or unneeded. I would imagine the greatness of the original Nightmare on Elm Street would have been diluted (yet still effective) with no idea why Kruger was targeting kids in their dreams. Even still, in that franchise, as we delve into his murder, his mother(!), or his children, it lost track of the original intent: scaring the shit out of people without to much thought as to why or how. Monsters are scarier if they just want to kill you, not avenge a death of their sister thirteen years ago due to a freak accident on the monkey bars.

Origin stories work in comic books because you want to see what led to the heroes (or even villains) becoming who they are. Most other movies do not need that level of detail in a character’s story. This is not to advocate the abandonment of a rich character. Far from it in fact.

In Die Hard, is it relevant to know McClane is on the outs with his wife? Yep. Is it important to know how he cut his teeth in the NYPD busting drug dealers and German terrorists, leading to a hatred for Hans Gruber and his kind? Nope and the filmmakers knew it. I would argue there is a difference between character history for a motive and character history for actions.

That said, are there holes in this rant? Absolutely. Are there movies, or characters, that I wish would have a back story not described here? You betcha. The point is, not all characters are created the same. Some are better without (Chris Nolan’s The Joker for example) and some better with.

Studios: don’t try to shoehorn in what clearly does not belong.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

False advertising is a big deal when it comes to businesses and consumer products. The laws on the books act to protect consumers against being misled about the product or service they are buying from inflated claims, inaccurate results, or overall deception. The United States even has the FTC, a government agency whose primary purpose is to protect buyers from all kinds of shenanigans. Why am I talking about this? Well, I am angry that there is no entertainment based equivalent to the FTC which would prevent unsuspecting movie goers from shelling out money on crap films.

When I saw The Crazies this weekend, attached to the print was a new trailer for the upcoming Nightmare on Elm Street remake. As I previously worried based on the test screening reviews, this remake could very well suck balls and destroy my own personal, nostalgic 80s universe by further bastardizing the franchise already undone by the likes of Freddy’s Dead and Freddy vs. Jason. But, as I sat in the darkened movie theater and realized what movie was being previewed, my concerns started to dwindle. This new Nightmare trailer was chock full of jump scares, creepy images, and effective call-backs to the original. For just a moment, I had completely forgot about the nervous article I had written just three days before. As the trailer ended and the feature began, I did not have the time or opportunity to really dwell on it. Now, more than 24 hours after seeing that, I realize the new Nightmare will probably suck and I’ll likely hate it even more just because of that trailer.

Now, I certainly understand that the entire purpose of trailers is for marketing purposes only and not necessarily to give you an accurate idea or feel for the film at hand. In fact, it would be quite difficult to create a two and a half minute preview which addressed and covered all the relevant information for the upcoming movie. For the good or even decent movies though, the trailer gives you a good sense of what to expect for the full ninety minutes or more of the movie. For the bad movies, the trailer is the little white lie which spirals out of the control of its creators and takes on a life of its own, destroying lives in the process. Okay, maybe that was a bit dramatic but trailers for bad movies are especially evil as the best editors seem to work on those exclusively, trying to shrink two hours of fail into a minute and a half of passably decent scenes to sucker in viewers across the country. If you need an example, look at the trailer for the Friday the 13th remake and compare that to the final product.

Therefore, I propose we enact legislation to ensure that promotional materials for an upcoming release match the quality of the film itself. Just like it is illegal to sell a cream that claims it will turn you into Cyndi Lauper, it should be illegal to pass a movie off as hip and edgy and featuring music from Stabbing Westward if it does not (I’m looking in your direction Mod Squad)! So how do we quantify and equate the quality of the preview to the movie itself? Just put a bunch of movie fans and let them watch the feature followed by the preview. Is your movie not as funny as it tries to be? Let’s put one of those failed jokes right smack at the start. Is your top-billed star only in approximately thirteen minutes of the two hour movie? We can just go ahead and trim out every other frame of that actor to create a jarring effect that would eventually be rather common to film goers. It’s as simple as that. It would not cost the studios any additional advertising dollars and maybe then can we rid the world of actors who need to go away for good.

Now all of that having been said, check out the new Nightmare trailer.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

Man, Julia Roberts sure is ugly. Not that being ugly has anything to do with talent. Man, Julia Roberts is not talented.  Sorry if you Googled yourself and found this, Julia.

Sleeping with the Enemy is on right now, which I have seen a couple of times. I am not sure why. I mean it isn’t terrible by any means, but it certainly isn’t the type of movie I tend to watch repeatedly. Julia’s grotesque appearance caused me to drift off and think of her body of work, which brought me to Ye Olde Internet Movie Database.  You certainly can’t accuse her of being lazy. She has 9 projects in development, one in post production and a new movie coming out on February 12th, appropriately titled Valentine’s Day. She has had as many as 3 films out in one year and has appeared on television numerous times as well. Looking at her resume, I find very little that I like. Flatliners was pretty good. Ocean’s Eleven was marginal. I mean, I don’t even like the hugely successful ones, like Steel Magnolias, Pretty Woman and Erin Brockovich. Am I trippin’ balls for not understanding her appeal? I certainly can’t figure out why she would be sought out as opposed to have to audition. I can’t possibly imagine anyone ever saying, “No! Only Julia can do this!” She is a horse in a sea of other horses that can act. What separates her from the lady that does the Miracle Gro, and the individually wrapped prunes commercials? Nothing. She did have that bad ass line at the end of Sleeping with the Enemy, though. As she is pointing the gun at her abusive husband, she tells the police, “Come quickly. I have just killed an intruder.” Then BLAM! Shoots him. Too bad the intruder wasn’t her career.

By the way, that post contained a spoiler.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

Children of my generation should either be feeling very nostalgic or very pissed. In the past few years, we have had cinematic resurrections of once popular entities such as Transformers and G.I. Joe, both to rather lukewarm (or downright angry) reception. It was reported a couple of years ago that toymaker Hasbro had partnered with Universal Studios to create up to four movies based on existing toys. Now, as a sign of the coming apocalypse, Taylor Lautner (aka one half of the Team Edward/Team Jacob battle) has signed on to portray Stretch Armstrong. Yes, you read that right. I’ll let it sink in.

Now, in fairness, Hasbro and Universal look to be giving these horrible abominations of film a fighting chance with some decent talent behind the camera. Ridley Scott is in the process of developing a film based on Monopoly (which I would assume will be six hours long and end with everyone just walking away in anger) while Peter Berg is set to go sailing on a Battleship all while Stretch’s adventures are being produced by Brian Grazer. Frankly, that’s a lot of high-powered muscle on the stupidest concept of a movie. Admittedly, during production people dismissed Pirates of the Caribbean which turned out to be a fairly successful franchise but I would argue that was the exception to the rule. While Transformers made a billion dollars or so between two movies and turned out better than I had personally expected, it was still just a series of action set-pieces and a paper-thin plot to get to robot destruction.

It was bad enough when Hollywood was focused on milking every single bit of originality out of filmmaking with previous movies, but to cross into the sacred territory of the building blocks of my childhood is unforgivable. What will come next? The Play-Doh Chronicles? NERF Wars? Lincoln Logs vs. Tinkertoys: Requiem? At least when toys were legitimately featured in films, there was a damn good reason as the movie was called Toy Story!

So, this is a simple message is to film producers in Southern California: Since you apparently refuse to create any real ideas or enlist the vast resources of people who can, please stick to bastardizing existing properties. Eventually, the diminishing returns at the box office might force you to reconsider at some point and go back to the drawing board. But, I do not want to see a Hungry Hungry Hippos or Candyland movie. That’s just too disgraceful.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

I saw Mannequin in the theater.

They are going to reboot this film. It better have Johnathan Silverman in it. For as you can see, the first one had Andrew McCarthy, and the second had Terry Kiser. So, in order to complete the Triumvirate, a reboot, remake or sequel, it must have Johnathan Silverman. Sadly, I do not think it will. Instead, it will apparently star Zac Efron. I assume that this will mean it will be some kind of gay musical, that pre-teens will rush to see. If it is, I demand that they use “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now” by Starship, which basically melted the cheese that was the first film.

If you haven’t seen this movie, first, you should thank what ever deity you throw money at on your day of worship. Second, here’s the basic story. Kim Cattrall is an ancient Egyptian who is cursed and turned in to a Mannequin and ends up in the future (1987) and can only come to life when Johnathan (coincidence?) Switcher is around. They work together to make the department store that Switcher works in the most successful in town. Brilliant.

I should be furious at this, but after thinking about it, it could be worse. They could remake it instead of reboot it, which would involve trying to recast the un-recastable. There is absolutely no way that anyone other than Meshach Taylor could play Hollywood. It would be a crime against humanity to have someone other than Estelle Getty play Ms. Timkin. And if anyone ever dares to recast any role played by Andrew McCarthy, they should be stoned to death. That being said, I am glad that it is a reboot, and cannot wait until they hip it up, and make a then irrelevant movie even more irrelevant to the young people, who will rub themselves to the thought of Zac Effron. You know what would be really funny? Have Kim Catrall play the mannequin again.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

As you might have already heard, Avatar has smashed box office records, overtaking Titanic with a current worldwide gross of $1.8 billion as of this post. As it currently enjoys an 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, the perceived experience of seeing Avatar in an 3D screening has seemingly overpowered some of the reported flaws of the film. Even if you actively try, you won’t get far on any movie site or blog without mention of the film. I even sat through a 43 minute promotion of the film on Bones, one of my favorite television shows. Yet, in spite of the good reviews and constant promotion, I have no desire to see it.

Now, I can understand its importance in the film-making industry both in critical terms and in the pop culture zeitgeist. James Cameron is an excellent director who has managed to again create a film that is appealing to many demographics of movie-goers, making the film a must-see just to be current with the times. His use of the 3D effects to create the fictional world of Pandora has been lauded as the best aspect of the film and groundbreaking for the use of CGI in film. Even though its been said by many, including our own Digger, that the plot of the film is flimsy, a mere mashup of previous films, it obviously has not hurt the film financially.

So why don’t I want to see this film, likely one that will be referenced and copied for years to come? Having heard so much positive about the movie over the past several weeks, I am almost positive if I see it, the over hyped film would fall flat especially with the numerous shortcomings I have read about. While I knew of a new Cameron movie prior to its release, I did not have a concept of the story or concept until the aforementioned Bones episode. As such I was not awaiting its release breathlessly as I was with Dark Knight and that has translated to a total sense of apathy about the movie, even a month after its release.

The final reason is something that I touched on in Digger’s review: the Titanic effect. Basically, if there is a movie I do not want to see to begin with that goes on to win awards, critical praise, and break box office records, my desire to see it wanes accordingly. It’s essentially a negative correlation between a movie’s attention and the likelihood of it getting my money. Does this make any sense for a self-proclaimed film fan and someone who “write” (and I use the term loosely) for a movie site? Admittedly, it does not. But that’s how I feel on the subject.

I liken myself more to being a film slob, one who enjoys watching cheese-ball fair more likely to win a Razzie to an Oscar-winning film about a lonely doctor in the Sahara that is a critical favorite. Now, eventually I will probably get around to watching the high-brow films that I tend not to see just as I will probably get around to watching Avatar. But for now, I would rather spend $8 to see The Wolfman over Avatar.

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

A few episodes ago on the awesome Movie Scum video series we discussed anti-feel-good movies. One of the films that came up was the 2004 remake Dawn of the Dead where I pretty much gave away the ending, saying “Sorry if you haven’t seen it, the movie’s been out for five years.” While we typically try to avoid important plot developments in the reviews that we write, shouldn’t there be an agreed upon statute of limitations for what is considered a spoiler?

While I was stalking the message boards for A Nightmare on Elm Street 3, one of the posts was about the death of a fairly important character to the franchise. Admittedly, this character’s name was in the title of the post but one of the responses left me absolutely baffled.

Usually such a post would contain the word SPOILER in the title, so as not to give the plot away for people who have not yet seen the movie, like me….

Now, ignoring the fact that the movie is over twenty years old at this point, why would someone who has yet to see a film go to a board specifically for the discussion of that movie and get pissed that a plot point is discussed? By the same argument, to protect the stupid, should every movie, either new release or fifty-year-old classic have spoiler alerts for every minute detail? While I may be guilty of trolling boards for films (or even TV shows) I haven’t seen, I don’t get pissed because IT’S MY OWN DAMN FAULT!

To use a more recent example, Cinematical ran a discussion about a plot development in the recent Book of Eli. In the article, a few theories were banded about to explain the twist at the ending of the film. Some who left comments were upset the piece had ruined the film … by disclosing there is a twist ending. Is the mere knowledge of a pending twist ending the same as giving the specifics? I say not as the person who left that comment is a moron as they would have had to read (or at least skim) the entire article to even leave the comment. In fact, both of these idiots deserve a swift kick in the nuts to reduce the chances of reproduction and a complimentary copy of the spoiler T-Shirt so they can bitch in private about films being ruined instead of online.

With that rant over, can we decide for Movie Scum what is and is not off limits? Spoilers only after a jump in the page? No specifics in the video series? Or are you reasonable and know that spoilers may pop up on a site that talks about MOVIES! Let us know in the comments (although I can’t guarantee we will stick to it).

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email

I’m sure you’ve all been victim to the recast monster. It takes no mercy for greed, on-screen sheninigans, or scheduling conflicts. It has no reason, no sense of remorse, or even common sense. It is willing to break your suspension of disbelief and continuity just for fun. Here are just a few random recastings that I though of which make little to no sense.

Victoria – Twilight series
Perhaps the most recent of these offenses is Bryce Dallas Howard taking over for Rachelle Lefevre in the third of the Twilight series. The official reason was cited as scheduling conflicts. Obviously having not seen the upcoming Eclipse, I cannot pass judgment on the new interpretation of the Victoria character, but the filmmakers should have exercised a bit more caution when dealing with riled-up 14-year-olds and Twi-moms. They seem to take this stuff seriously.

Kristen – Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3 & Part 4
From what I can gather, Patricia Arquette was unable to return to the role of Kristen for Nightmare 4 due to pregnancy. A valid reason but that doesn’t make the shift any less jarring, especially considering they were able to bring back Joey and Kincaid with the same actors. It would be one thing if the whole bunch was recast like the Griswald kids, but having two of the three return is a bit awkward.

Jack Ryan – Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games & Sum of All Fears
Jack Ryan is a rather popular character in the paperback world having been featured in twelve novels by Tom Clancy. Yet we have only four movies over the course of twelve years played by three different actors. The constant changing of James Bond seems to actually help the series reinvent itself. While Jack Ryan could have (or possibly still) become as household as Jason Bourne, he is not an established cinematic character and thus, the series suffers from the constant delays and turnover.

George McFly – Back to the Future series
Originally portrayed by Crispin Glover, subsequent sequels in the series used a different actor for the character of Marty’s father. There are conflicting stories about why the character was recast from the favorite “creative differences” to Glover requesting an unreasonable sum of money to reprise the role. As such, the character was killed off in the sequel and barely featured in the third, minimizing what was an integral part of the series. While the stories make Glover rather buffoon-ish for not returning, the producers dealt with it in an interesting way, hiding the replacement actor behind make-up or creative camera angles.

Jamie Lloyd – Halloween 4, Part 5, & Part 6
This is the recast which pissed me off the most as the lovely Danielle Harris was kicked to the curb for a cheaper replacement, only to have the character killed off in the first ten minutes of the film. Actually, I might have been more pissed to see such a beloved character played by the same actress meet such a fate. Perhaps the producers were attempting to do us a favor to distract us from the sheer awfullness of the film. But I’m still pissed about it.

I could go on all day but I will stop here. What are some other recasts, good or bad, that caught you off guard?

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• Buzz it up
• Reddit
• Stumble Upon
• Twitter
• Email