An R is an R is an R

George Costanza once famously quipped on the television show Seinfeld, "Why can't I just be?" When it comes to the recent trend in Hollywood regarding R-rated films, I'm wondering why an R film can't just be an R film?

You're probably wondering what I mean by this. Well to understand my question you first have to understand the trend I mentioned. Over the last decade or so there has been a big push by Hollywood to recuts film that have an R rating in order to get them to a PG-13. Ostensibly this is to make them more commerically appealing but in reality it's just so the studios can get more money. Obviously not as many people (e.g. underage teenagers with expendable income) can get into an R rated film as a PG-13 one.

To quote Charles Barkley from the recent NCAA tournament coverage, this situation is "turrible" and a "travessy." That's "terrible" and "travesty" for those of you don't speak Barkley. In any case the sentiment remains the same.

Does Hollywood have any self respect left at all? Why sacrifice artistic integrity for money? Oh that's right....BECAUSE IT'S HOLLYWOOD. Take Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch for example. Although it is clearly solid as a PG-13 movie I couldn't help thinking that there were several times that scenes (death scenes mostly) demanded to be more graphic, in fact may have even been shot that way, but couldn't because it had to meet that PG-13 rating. Or take for example Ridley Scott's 2005 film Kingdom of Heaven. Scott had to recut the film, outwardly because the studio said it was too long. In reality it was code for "too violent Rid, make it more bankable."

Even worse is the trend of making PG-13 sequels, when the original movie was R. Alien vs. Predator falls into this category. Really? We needed to tame down the creatures of Alien and Predator? Can you imagine if the studio execs in Hollywood told Todd Phillips that he had to make The Hangover Part II into a PG-13 movie??? That movie should be nothing but a hard R.

Bottom line Hollywood: let a movie stand on it's own merit. If it's an R let it be an R. If it's PG-13 let it be PG-13. Anything less than that is just disingenuous.

Amy Adams to play Lois Lane!!!!!!

Hot on the heels of his release of Sucker Punch, Zack Synder announced that Oscar nominee Amy Adams (most recently for The Fighter) has been cast as Lois Lane in the upcoming Superman reboot.

According to Synder, the director's search of Superman's main squeeze was exhausting. Numerous actresses were rumored to be in the hunt for the the spelling challenged reporter for The Daily Planet, everyone from Zooey Deschanel to Evangeline Lily. However Snyder stated that Adams was a "perfect fit for it."

Snyder also added that Adams' character would be a "linchpin" to the story and that her character would have a "contemporary feel and spirit." Lois Lane on Twitter and Facebook perhaps? Again I think this is an excellent pick. Not only is Adams beautiful but she's a fantastic actress and I think can bring the prerequisite amount of spunk and sass to the role.

Now...let's get Supes' villain cast already!

Review: Sucker Punch

Plot: When Baby Doll (Emily Browning) is wrongfully accused of killing her sister and committed to an insane asylum by her stepfather, her only option before an impending lobotomy is escape. Driven by a desperate escape plan and aided by inmates Sweat Pea (Abbie Cornish), Rocket (Jena Malone), Blondie (Vanessa Hudgens), and Amber (Jamie Chung), Baby Doll discovers that freeing her mind may be the key to freeing herself.

Review: Director Zack Synder is known for his ability to create worlds whether it is the sword and sandal world of 300 or the dystopian 1985 of Watchmen. In Snyder's latest work, Sucker Punch, Snyder has once again created a fantastical world long on visuals but sometimes lacking in story and plot development. Often exciting, sometimes uneven, Sucker Punch nevertheless delivers a tour de force of action, entertainment, and popcorn thrills.

One of the most impressive elements about Snyder's direction is his attention to detail. He often hones in on the smallest details whether it is the click of a lock or the flick of a Bic lighter. One fundamental rule of good storytelling is the expression "show me don't tell me." Synder is an expert at that. Reminiscent of Hitchcock's Rear Window, in the first five minutes of Sucker Punch there isn't one word of dialogue, but Baby Doll's backstory is revealed in such vivid detail, to the background of The Eurythmics's "Sweet Dreams," there is no need for words. In fact music sets the stage for many sequences in this film. Re-imagined versions of hits by Queen, Led Zepplin, and Alison Mosshart consistently rock throughout Sucker Punch.

While the idea of escaping from an asylum isn't exactly new, the format is definitely unique and also confusing. In reality you have the actual asylum where these girls are held, however as a coping mechanism (presumably) Baby Doll imagines she's actually trapped at a dance hall/brothel run by Blue Jones (Oscar Issac) and trying to escape from there. The only way to escape is by acquiring four items: a map, fire, a knife, and a key. All of these things are in the physical world but again, in order to cope, Baby Doll must attain them in her fantasy world. There fire is actually dragon crystals, the knife is actually a bomb, etc...What's great about the story is that it allows Snyder to delve into worlds of fantasy and science fiction. This showcases the excellent special effects of Animal Logic and the sleek cinematography of Larry Fong. Unfortunately, it also makes for a distinctly non-linear story that is often times perplexing. I'll freely admit it took me about twenty minutes to figure out what the hell was going on.

The visual nature of the film begs for strong action sequences and there are plenty of those in Sucker Punch. Whether it's fighting samurai warriors twenty feet tall or storming a castle guarded by a fire breathing dragon, this movie has your flavor of action ice cream. Sucker Punch is a movie not limited by physical realities. The problem is that the action sometimes gets monotonous especially in the middle of the movie. And there are WAY too many slow motion sequences in this film.

Besides the visual platform itself, what's unique about Sucker Punch was how all the main characters were such bad assess. It's not often we get to see female leads in such aggressive superhero-like roles. While Emily Browning isn't very memorable as Baby Doll, she's solid. Vanessa Hudgens and Jamie Chung are, sadly, just along for the ride as the tepid Blondie and Amber. Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone really steal the show here though, especially Malone. Smart, sexy, and powerful, Malone also managed to show a vulnerable side to Rocket. She's come a long way since Stepmom.

One drawback to having a movie dominated by women is that there is very little room for the men. However what male roles there are, were filled extremely well. Jon Hamm is strong as The Doctor/High Roller and Oscar Issac is fantastic as the nefarious Blue Jones. I have to admit I was expecting more from The Wiseman/General/Bus Driver played by character actor Scott Glenn. He kind of fell flat for me and his dialogue was delivered in a very hackneyed and corny kind of way.

One thing to note is that there is definitely some Manga and Anime influence here. However that doesn't take away from the enjoyment of the story. And while some critics have stated that Sucker Punch fetishizes women, I disagree. Although the women of this film are often scantily clad, that isn't what I focused on. What drew me was how strong these women really were. To be perfectly frank, how much they kicked ass. It's just unfortunate that the only way the women of Sucker Punch can be fierce is through Baby Doll's fantasy world. However, the nature of setting dictates this fact.

In any case it's fun to watch.

My rating: 7/10

R.I.P. Elizabeth Taylor

One of the last great movie stars of the golden age of cinema, Elizabeth Taylor, passed away today at the age of 79. Suffering from numerous health problems over the last several years, Taylor succumbed to complications arising from congestive heart failure at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles California. Taylor is survived by four children, ten grandchildren, and four great grandchildren.

I'd hazard that most people below 30 have heard of Liz Claiborne before Liz Taylor, but in her time Taylor was one of the most beautiful and talented actresses in Hollywood. In a film and television career that spanned an incredible 61 years, Taylor was a five time Oscar nominee for Best Actress winning for 1960's BUtterfield 8 and 1966's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Taylor was married eight times most notably to seven time Oscar nominee Richard Burton, once the highest paid man in Hollywood. Taylor retreated from Hollywood in the late 60s and in to the 70s seeking to focus more on her marriages. Liz Taylor also had her struggles with substance abuse, checking into the famous Betty Ford clinic in the early 80s.

Later in life the actress also dabbled in the jewelry and perfume industries. Taylor was active in several charities, including those related to AIDS related research after her close friend and fellow actor Rock Hudson died of AIDS related illness in 1985.

Elizabeth Taylor is an actress I consider to be the female Marlon Brando. Starring in films with actors like Richard Burton, Spencer Tracy, Paul Newmann, and James Dean, Taylor's method acting and willingness to throw herself into a character was second to none. Sultry, sexy, sophisticated, complicated, talented, and passionate, Liz Taylor was all of these things and more. You cannot write the history of cinema without mentioning Elizabeth Rosemond Taylor.

And that I think that is the most telling testament to Liz Taylor's true impact on the movies.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt and The Dark Knight Rises Update

Man this is getting embarrassing! Not only did I mess up Joseph Gordon-Levitt's name the other day but now I have to do another update regarding the role Gordon-Levitt will have in the film. Two days after Variety stated JGL would be playing Alberto Falcone (as I previously reported) now Entertainment Weekly has filed a report that while it is confirmed that JGL is in the film, he is in fact NOT playing Alberto Falcone or the Holiday Killer. Oh Hollywood you fickle mistress! Just goes to show rumors float like turds and sometimes stink just as bad. Anyway as soon as I find out what role JGL is playing in The Dark Knight Rises I will update you accordingly. In the meantime you'll just have to be content with the fact that he's in the movie.

Correction

From the Cookie Jar Staff:

Yesterday's post regarding casting for the film "The Dark Knight Rises" mistakenly referred to "James Gordon-Levitt". Obviously, this should read "Joseph Gordon-Levitt". The Cookie Jar attributes the error to a combination of excitement at the news, a temporary brain freeze, and a loss of focus thanks to being reminded of Anne Hathaway in a Catwoman suit.

We regret the error.

James Gordon-Levitt officially cast in The Dark Knight Rises

And the rumor mill finally lands on reality! James Gordon-Levitt was rumored to be attached to Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises for quite some time, but no one knew in what capacity. Some speculated he was going to play The Riddler but that got shot down when Nolan announced The Riddler would not be in the film. Others speculated that he would appear in a brief cameo as The Joker. Some even discussed the possibility of Gordon-Levitt playing The Boy Wonder himself Dick Grayson, aka Robin.

Well speculate no more.

According to the insiders at Variety, Gordon-Levitt will be playing the role of mobster Alberto Falcone, son of mob boss Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) from Batman Begins. To those familiar with the Batman universe, it is important to note that Alberto Falcone is actually the Batman villain Holiday, a brutual serial killer from the Batman storyline "The Long Halloween."

Whether or not Nolan will be following any of "The Long Halloween" storyline in The Dark Knight Rises remains to be seen. My instincts say no because what with Bane, Catwoman, and The League of Shadows (supposedly) being involved in the upcoming movie, I just think it would make for one too many plot lines. But then again with an innovative director like Christopher Nolan anything is possible. I think Gordon-Levitt's character will be a minor villain involved in the overall machinations of Bane and The League of Shadows. Hopefully he will get some juicy scenes to show his acting chops. Gordon-Levitt's come a long way since playing Tommy on 3rd Rock From the Sun.

So that casting mystery is cleared up.

Now if we could only get some pictures of Anne Hathaway in the Catwoman suit....

There and Back Again Begins...Finally!

To say the production road for The Hobbit has been a long and treacherous one is like saying Mordor is a little bleak. First there was a lawsuit by douchebag Tolkien scion Christopher. Then MGM went bankrupt. Then Guillermo Del Toro left as director. Actors threatened a strike in New Zealand. Two earthquakes happened. One of Peter Jackson's special effects warehouses burned down. Even the head hobbit himself Peter Jackson was hospitalized with stomach problems.

It's enough to make one want to throw themselves into the Crack of Doom.

But finally...finally principal photography is set to begin tomorrow March 21st in New Zealand, according to Entertainment Weekly. I will unequivocally say that The Hobbit is the most anticipated movie of my 32 years on this planet. The novel has been close to my heart since I was five years old. Tolkien's work helped open up the world of reading to me when I was ten years old and since then I've progressed to even better (in my opinion) fantasy authors in Robert Jordan (R.I.P.) and George R. R. Martin.

But J.R.R. Tolkien will always be the Godfather and The Hobbit my own personal one ring. I'm overjoyed that this movie is finally getting off the ground. It's going to be difficult waiting 21 months for only the first installment of this film to be released but one thing is for sure--I'll be the first in line.

Aronofsky off The Wolverine!!!!

Talk about disappointing. Due to the fact that shooting would last almost a year and in a foreign country to boot, Academy Award nominated director Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan) has bowed out of Fox's upcoming The Wolverine. At present Aronofsky is in a bit of a custody battle with his ex, actress Rachel Weisz and felt that the logistics of shooting for a year in Japan just wouldn't work. (For the record Japan probably isn't the best place on the planet to be filming a movie right now either.)

In my opinion Aronofsky is a phenomenal director. Black Swan and The Wrestler were amazing pieces of cinema and it's tragic that Aronofsky won't be helming The Wolverine. His take on the film could have been just as good, if not better than Christopher Nolan's work on Batman. However, I can't fault a guy for wanting to be with his family and in any case Aronofsky states that the script is excellent. I definitely breathed a sigh of relief after he said that because quite frankly David Benioff and Skip Woods' script for X Men Origins: Wolverine was atrocious.

Fox says they will be moving "forward aggressively" with the film so I expect a new director will be picked shortly if Fox wants to keep a summer 2012 release date for the film. In the meantime the departure leaves fans wondering what Aronofsky's next film will be and pondering what might have been.

Positive Movie Viewing=Thinking Blu

Let's be honest for a moment. Technology, especially software, moves faster than Charlie Sheen's neurotransmitters today and it is difficult to determine what the "best" of anything is. What's the best Ipod, cell phone, eReader, gourmet Whopper--the choices can get overwhelming. While many people are going to the streaming video route--which is fine--if you're looking to upgrade your home movie viewing experience you can't go wrong with a Blu-ray player.

Blu-ray players and DVDs are just better plain and simple. Better picture, better sound, better color, better everything. They even make your old DVDs (which you can also play on the Blu-ray player) look better. Obviously you have to have a HD televison for Blu-ray to be effective (I recommend 1080i television rather than a 720, trust me it's worth it) but I'm assuming that if you read my blog, enjoy movies, and have a reasonable income you probably already have an HD television. In any event it is definitely worth an upgrade.

Now some of you may be thinking that Blu-ray players and DVDs are way too expensive. Three years ago you might have been correct (and if you still go to an FYE store you still are--avoid that place like the plague) but the great thing about advancing technology is that when new ones come along, like iPads, the slightly older stuff tends to go down in price. Five years ago your typical Blu-ray player would have run you upwards of $300. Now you can get a good one (I'm talking Sony not APEX) for around $150 and sometimes even less than that.

The Blu-ray DVDs aren't that expensive anymore either. Case in point: my wife and I just received our tax returns and decided that each of us could spend $100 on whatever we wanted. Being a movie enthusiast I of course spent mine on movies. I bought six Blu-rays for just over $100. Six! Some of them were cheap as $10. And before you ask I bought quality ones too like The Natural and Gremlins not Troll 5: The Return of Billy Goat Gruff. There are bargains to be had my friends. I highly recommend Best Buy if you want the best deals on players and movies.

Like anything else though the software tends to outstrip the hardware. If you do buy a Blu-ray player you may have to update the software occasionally. There is a website you can go to to upload onto a disc which you can then transfer to your Blu-ray player. The whole process takes about ten minutes. If you have wireless Internet even better because (depending on the player you have) it will download automatically onto your player within a couple of minutes. The best bang for your buck is still a Playstation 3. It retails for about $299 now. Not only do you get a fantastic Blu-ray player that loads movies and games quickly, lets you know when you need to update the software, and is sleek and stylish, it also doubles as a video game system. I believe you can also now get Netflix movies on it as well. Slam dunk.

There is one thing I want to advise you on when it comes to Blu-ray DVDs, and please understand this my own personal opinion. You may not agree. With certain rare exceptions it is probably not worth your money to buy Blu-ray DVDs of movies made before 1980. (Star Wars not withstanding of course.) I say this because I personally cannot tell much of a difference in picture from movies that old. I'm sure a lot of that has to do with the way movies are made today and what film they use. In point of fact many Blu-ray DVDs of recent films look better than in the actual movie theater. Again this last is just personal preference. Judge for yourself.

In any case if you've got a little extra spending money and you're seriously considering upgrading your home entertainment system, trust me and take the high definition plunge. It's certainly the best looking and Blu-est part of the pool.

Review: Battle: Los Angeles

Plot: When strange meteorites hitting the Earth's surface turn out to be an alien invasion, it's up to a group of United States marines led by Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) to find the aliens' command and control center and retake Los Angeles from the extraterrestrial insurgents.

Review: Battle: Los Angeles is the bastardization of films like War of the Worlds, Independence Day, and Black Hawk Down. Unfortunately, it lacks the visceral impact of any of those films. A bombastic, over the top nightmare of a film from start to finish, Battle: Los Angeles should have been named Loud and Obnoxious or Full of Bullets and Explosions. Director Jonathan Liebesman's hokey send up to alien invasion films is plotted out with the precision of 90 year old man with palsy shooting a machine gun and just as poorly executed. It's a desperate attempt to mimic Ridley Scott that fails miserably. Instead Liebesman (director of such gems as Darkness Falls and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) comes off like a third rate Michael Bay, and yes that is meant as an insult.

To be fair it's hard to direct a quality movie when the script apparently was written on the back of a pizza box. In crayon. Christopher Bertolini's screenplay is a disaster. Sauced with cliched "win one for the Gipper" speeches, peppered with one dimensional characters like the young virgin marine, and garnished with terrible lines such as "It's ok I'm a veterinarian," this gumbo of a script tastes as bad as it smells. Apparently Bertolini thought bullets should have the most lines in this film.

I was thankful that at least some of the bullets hit their mark in Battle: Los Angeles, as there were so many stock characters that I had absolutely no affinity for. Never have I rooted so hard for aliens to take over the human race. Aaron Eckhart is decent as Nantz but the tough-guy-who-is-really-hurting-inside role is kind of tailor made for him. Seemed like he was cashing a paycheck on this one. Tom Brady's baby momma Bridget Moynahan also makes an appearance as vet Michele Martinez, though God knows why. Her character is so transparent that you could poke a hole through her. Perhaps Moynahan was given this role to distract from Brady's ponytail? I'm not sure.

And to piggy-back on Mike's recent article about the Plausibility Threshold; my bs tolerance for Battle: Los Angeles kicked in about fifteen minutes into the film. For some strange reason our military seemed to think that the alien invaders only had ground forces and were shocked when they suddenly discovered they had air support. Also the aliens only apparent weak spot is just to the right of where a human heart would be. Really? So basically a chest shot that most humans or animals would be susceptible to? Apparently Agatha Christie added the intrigue to that little plot twist. Oh and apparently all the ground and air machines (one of which looked like an AT-AT walker from Star Wars) are drones controlled by a command and control center. (CACC) Knocking out the CACC registers all the drones non-functional. Again really? Aliens traveled untold light years yet they have virtually no protection against our weak-ass missiles and no redundant systems at all? Apparently Earth is being attacked by aliens with the intelligence level of "The Situation" from "Jersey Shore" in Battle: Los Angeles.

If I had to pick from being anally probed by aliens and watching this film again, I'd reach for the lube immediately--that's how bad this movie is. Trust me on this one and avoid Battle: Los Angeles like a sidewinder missile.

My rating: 2/10

Fictional Geography: "2012"

Originally, I thought about writing a piece about all of the bad science in that world-renowned crap-fest of a disaster film, “2012”. It didn’t take me long to realize that to attempt to do so would be an overwhelming task, one that I could not hope to complete in my lifetime. So rather than go with my original title “Fictional Science*”, I am going to go a different route and focus on something I noticed right away when watching this movie; something so ridiculous, I felt compelled to not only email Corrye about it the next day, but create a graphic explaining what I was talking about.

(* - Although you may be seeing “Fictional Science” in the future; it just won’t be in connection with this movie.)

Before I get into the nuts and bolts of my rant, a bit on the general topic. Like everyone else, I understand that when watching a movie, there is a certain suspension of disbelief that needs to be undertaken in order to enjoy the film. After all, as many people are fond of saying, “it’s only a movie”. To a certain extent, I agree, with some caveats. One, it depends on the movie, or more specifically, what the movie is trying to be. If it is “based on a true story”, it really ought to contain minimal implausible scenes and events. On the other hand, if it is based on a comic book or graphic novel, I’m pretty much willing to let anything slide (recent example: “Red”).

Which leads me to what I like to call “The Plausibility Threshold”. When watching a movie, I am willing to give a certain amount of leeway to unrealistic scenes and events. When the number of these scenes reaches a tipping point, or an individual scene/event occurs which is so implausible as to be ridiculous, The Plausibility Threshold has been crossed, and I can no longer take the movie seriously. There isn’t, as of yet, any kind of formula for determining The Plausibility Threshold; it’s more along the lines of “I know it when I see it.”

For “2012”, I “saw it” in less time than it took to get settled into my seat. Again, I’m not going to go into all the bad science. Not only would it take too long, I don’t have detailed notes, and the absolute last thing I want to do is subject myself to watching it again, even in part, for the sake of a blog entry. If anyone notices an error in my recollection for what I am going to discuss, feel free to correct me in the comments. I’m confident that even if I miss a minor detail, the overall scope of my point will remain strong.

The scene in question takes place in Las Vegas, when some of the characters (I don’t recall who, and frankly it doesn’t matter) are trying to get out of the city on a huge transport plane. They get off the ground, and proceed to fly over/around/through a number of well-known Vegas landmarks before finally leaving the city. I’m sure the scene was filmed as it was in order to show the destruction of as many of these well-known landmarks as possible, but the geography versus a plausible flight path was not possible. Repeat: NOT POSSIBLE.

Having visited Vegas a number of times, I noticed this right away, which I know makes me a dork but hey, that’s what I do. For an explanation, I take you back to the email I sent to Corrye:

“There is one scene where they are escaping Las Vegas with buildings collapsing all around (of course). They take off from the airport, and right away fly between the crumbling Wynn and Encore buildings. Then they barely miss the crumbling Bellagio (approaching it from the front) before scraping the top of the Eiffel Tower at the Paris and getting home free. Keep in mind they are were flying straight line the whole time, attempting to climb in altitude. Here’s the problem, illustrated by their supposed flight path in orange arrows. Um, WHAT THE…!?

The map pretty much speaks for itself. I also have to agree with Corrye’s response to my email, which read (in part), “To me that’s just being lazy. What, no one associated with the movie has ever been to Vegas? They can’t look online for a map?”

I’m curious – did anyone else out there bother with this movie? If so, what did you think was the most ridiculous scene? Face it, there’s plenty to choose from.

Droppin' References: Movies in Popular Music

Driving home the other day, I was scanning through the pop music channels on XM and listening to whatever happened to catch my ear. During the process, I noticed not one, but two references to one of 2010's Oscar-nominated films, Inception. The first was from the Black Eyed Peas, in their new song "Just Can't Get Enough":

Honey got a sexy all steamin

She give hotness a new meanin

Perfection mama you gleamin

Inception you got a brother dreamin dreamin

The second is Jennifer Lopez' newest, "On the Floor", featuring Pitbull (the lyrics here are done by the latter):

I'm loose

And everybody knows I get off the train

Baby it's the truth

I'm like Inception I play with your brain

This got me to thinking – what other references to movies are out there in the music world, either currently, or in the past? They could be titles, characters, plots; the possibilities are endless. Let's hear it in the comments – share some of your favorites. If I happen to catch any more, I'll post them in the comments as well.