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.

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.

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.

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 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 “writes” (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.

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).

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?

It’s no secret that Hollywood producers are scared to death of original ideas. One just has to look at the past decade of films to see that most big budget movies released in theaters are adaptations of existing stories (novels, short stories, and most recently, comic books) or sequels of successful and some not-so successful films. (seriously, Jumper 2?) But now, we are living in the age of the remake, and it pisses me off to no end. Why adapt or continue a good story when you can just take a preexisting movie and re-shoot it? There’s already a built-in audience that loves the property, and that audience doesn’t have to be worried about coping with new ideas or unexpected plot twists. Just look at the release line-up for 2010 and 2011. It’s packed full of “new” movies that are remakes of classics, remakes of foreign films, and, most absurdly, remakes of remakes.

I’ll forgive that some older movies like Fritz Lang’s Metropolis from 1927 might benefit from a modern retelling. Even some not-so-old movies like Flash Gordon from 1980 could look good with a current generation face-lift, maybe. But almost all of these upcoming remakes just make my blood boil.

Horror movies seem to have some kind of remake bull’s eye on them. George A. Romero’s The Crazies and Wes Craven’s A Nightmare on Elm Street both have remakes slated to hit theaters early this year, and John Carpenter is next on the chopping block, with The Thing and They Live scheduled for updated bastardizations in 2011. Come on, guys, The Thing IS a remake. I think the world will be just fine without that CG abomination. Even worse than that is Hollywood’s apparent need to make English speaking versions of perfectly great foreign films, specifically The Orphanage and Let the Right One In, that were released just TWO YEARS AGO! And this is just the baby-toe of the hideously rehashed cinematic iceberg that’s in store for us in the near future. The Blob, Poltergeist, Logan’s Run, Short Circuit, Sunset Boulevard, Suspiria, Highlander, The Karate Kid, Footloose, An American Werewolf in London, Billy Jack, Red Dawn, Total Recall, Hard Boiled, Akira, Scanners, Barbarella, Revenge of the Nerds, The Fly, The Host, Dune, Sharky’s Machine, Rosemary’s Baby… Do you think that’s enough?!

The worst, by far, is a movie scheduled for release this year called The King of Kong. If you can believe this, it’s a scripted remake of a documentary that came out in 2007 about two men fighting for the Donkey Kong high score world record. I own the documentary on DVD, and it is awesome, but this remaking a documentary idea is just surreal. What does anyone hope to accomplish by remaking a documentary?

The collective filmgeeks of the world cheered when it was announced that Darren Aronofsky would be helming a remake of 1987′s RoboCop as an attempt to breathe life into this once great franchise which has fallen mightily. However, the production company’s financial woes not only have resulted in the film being pushed back but may even cost the world a semi-decent remake of a beloved film.

The near-defunct MGM has dictated to Aronofsky that the reboot shall be made in 3D or else. Having a scant, but still highly lauded, number of titles to his name, Aronofsky does not seem to be a guy to make a movie for the money. As such, the presumed director is more than willing to walk as opposed to making a movie he does not want to.

As I have previously asked, what is the big f-in deal with movies in 3D? Sure, it may work for gimmicky horror movies like My Bloody Valentine or Friday the 13th Part III with axes and eyeballs careening toward the audience, but short of the totally immersed effect of a film like Avatar, it does not add to the film as a whole, it only makes it look more ridiculous when 3D falls out of fad again.

Please MGM, let this movie be made but get your grubby, plagiarist fingers out of the pie. I will be highly pissed should the remake of Robocop fall into the same claptrap of teenage stars, gimmicky effects, and generally crappiness that have befallen so many other remakes in the past ten years.

History certainly seems to repeat itself. Films in 3D have been around for a while but seem to have peaks and valleys in their popularity. With the last burst of 3D cinema occurring close to thirty years ago (perhaps it follows the remake timeline), more films recently have been released relying on the concept of adding that extra dimension to movies. With James Cameron’s much publicized Avatar set to drop later this month, 3D films could be facing a huge resurgence depending on this film’s success.

But my question stems from an article quoting James Gianopulos, the CEO of Fox who was overseeing the production of Avatar:

“As Jim says, we experience the world in 3D, why should we experience film any different?”

Having only seen one film in theaters with 3D segments (for the record, that was the terrible Freddy’s Dead), I can’t really speak for how well depth perception is really conveyed. My questions are, if films have been shot in regular 2D for decades consistently, with 3D appearing as a fad with its many resurgences and declines, is 3D really that effective? Is it here to stay? Did it make Jaws III a better movie at the theater than what I saw at home?

So, DVDs have been around for over ten years, yet there are still films that were released long ago on VHS that have yet to see the day on DVD. Now, I have lived this long without, but it irritates me that there are still pockets of unrecognized films without proper representation on the digital standard (no, I’m not counting Blu-Ray at this point).

While it was lauded as a groundbreaking “meta” film at the time, some of the luster has worn off Wes Craven’s Scream. However, it is still a highly entertaining exercise in understanding Kevin Williamson’s highly unrealistic teenage dialect wrapped in a pretty decent slasher film. While this film has been on DVD for some time, it is not anamorphic so it looks like crap on my TV in stretch-o-vision and it is even the version trimmed down to appease the dolts at the MPAA. If Paramount can release Event Horizon on DVD three times, surely Dimension can throw a few dollars toward a decent, uncut release of this “classic.”

While it is probably the most maligned of the Halloween series, I’ve always had a special space in my heart for Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers. One of the reasons it is frowned upon so is due to the chainsaw editing that was done after the film was completed. Many scenes were cut down or reshot all together resulting in a major clusterfuck of a movie. Still, this one had the best autumn atmosphere out of any of the sequels and there were many scenes of greatness trying to sneak through. Yet, all we have is a discontinued bare-bones theatrical version of the movie. Now, I’m not asking for a three hour retrospective documentary on the film, but give me the deleted scenes so I can verify the validity of the claim that while still crap, the movie makes much more sense. Coincidentally, also a Dimension Films release. Hmm …

Maniac Cop 2. I’m not sure what else I need to say about a movie called … Maniac Cop 2 other than its a sequel to a film about a maniac cop which starred Bruce Campbell and Tom Adkins. And this is not on DVD other than on different continents. Does whatever company own this dreck think I don’t want to see a high-def version of the titular character blowing away a police station full of cops or Leo Rossi’s ugly mug? If Starz feels a need to show this and its inferior second sequel, there certainly has to be some demand for a DVD.

While these movies may not represent AFI’s Top 100 list, I demand respect to be paid to these … uh, movies. Fix it, Hollywood!!