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.