Hellraiser remake news/thoughts

Just had to comment on this as it strikes me as rather worrying. Director Pascal Laugier (who recently did the well received fantastic Martyrs (review up soon)) spoke to Sci Fi Wire about the upcoming Hellraiser remake (which I'm really excited about seeing as it's one of my favourite horror series' if not my one and only favourite), which he said will be a reboot of the franchise and will retain the "transgressive material" of the original.

"The idea behind Hellraiser is not to do a remake — it's to do what they call a reboot — that is to say, a new version," said Laugier. "So what I am proposing to Dimension, the studio behind Hellraiser, is some elements coming from the first film mixed with brand-new stuff."

He added: "My main problem, honestly, with the Hellraiser reboot is that Hellraiser is very transgressive material. It deals with S&M and gay issues, and I really want to be faithful to the book and Clive Barker's world. I don't want to betray him. So if I have the feeling that I am being asked by Hollywood to soften the franchise, I will leave in a blink."

Now, hold on a second: GAY ISSUES!? Hellraiser has NOTHING TO DO with gay issues, as far as I am aware nothing at all, it's more religious than anything remotely resembling homosexual subjects! Oh, so the Cenobites dress in leather and love S and M, that makes them deal with gay issues? HOW?! Man, this guy has no clue....he's got to speak to Barker and get him involved or he's going to go in the wrong direction.

There's nothing homosexual about Hellraiser, though, whatsoever, not even innuendos. It's about pain and pleasure, S and M fetishes, going beyond limits, beings from alternate universes, religious subtext, fantasy, horror, etc- but there is nothing gay about it, not in the original novel or the film series. Hellraiser is just so much more than meets the eye, yes it's about sex and lust, desire, pain and pleasure but beyond that is is revolutionary in it's ideas, almost mind-blowing; it destroys typical conventions, it explores dimensions, alternate universes, breaking down barriers, going beyond established Judea-christian religious subtexts and limits, it's psychological in it's aspects as it is scientific- it's epic fantasy and horror fused together to create a universe we've never really seen before. It's not just about gore and sex, though it is part of it and relevant it's also completely beyond that.

Unless I'm wrong I totally do not see anything homosexual about the characters; Cenobites or humans, or story for that matter. Barker himself described the Cenobites sporting a sort of "neo-punk" fashion, though they are meant to be beings of a high order; "theologians of the Order of the Gash". There's nothing gay about it, in fact in the novel they are described as sexually ambiguous, conforming to neither gender. Saying Hellraiser deals with "gay issues" just shows that they have no idea or grasp of what the actual concept is about. Yes it is unusual and I guess "queer" in it's sense of difference but "gay issues" is a rather narrow term to use, I think.

People I think have the wrong idea about it if they see gay stuff in it as that is not the premise, and certainly not an issue.

Anyway, regarding the movie I think this "remake/reboot" should be set in London, England, and have 55 Ludovico Street situated there as it is in the original novella. I think it would be brilliant to have it set in as it would also give it that unique gothic horror feel, being among the sights and sounds of London town- it's just too generic to have it set in the US like every other Hollywood movie these days, that's what made the first two films stand out because it looked so visibly different from the other flicks which were set in America.

My thoughts:

-Set it in London, England- like the original movie and the novel.
-get British actors, with the exception of one or two, but Frank has to be British, as does Pinhead, and preferably Julia.
-no dubbing out English voices this time!
-show more of London town, especially when Julia is out picking up victims in bars.

I think it would work really well, even though it's not a British production, I think the setting and background of London is just so much tighter and Gothic for the material than the US. I hope this new re-imagining/reboot goes back to the roots, the later sequels were missing this element.

And regarding my dream cast for the movie:

My picks:

Kirsty Cotton---Emily Blunt (one of my favourite actresses right now though I can also see Kiera Knightly doing an excellent job)
Julia---Famke Jansen
Frank Cotton---Andy Serkis, Dominic West or Jason Isaacs (all fantastic actors who would play the part well though I can't seem to decide who)
Rory/Larry---Richard Armitage (pictured)
Pinhead/Lead Cenobite---Tom Hardy (a popular fan favourite, pictured)

I think Famke would be a perfect choice for Clare Higgins' successor as the woman who kills for her forbidden lover in this version, even though Famke is a bit weary on horror movies.

Well, I'm inclined to think that Hellraiser is a little more than "horror". It's every much a character drama too, a lethal 3 way liaison between two men, a film about lust, betrayal, obsession, desire, the epitome of high Gothic horror/romance, as if something written by Edgar Allan Poe etc...something which Famke can easily get her teeth into and in all honestly something I think is suited to her, made for her even; I can't think of a better person who has such a powerful screen presence, especially when the character itself is turns from a normal loving woman who has an affair and then becomes a cold-blooded icy murderer. Julia is supposed to be a beautiful woman with a hidden secret whose transformation is slow and drawn out, the audience is both on her side and against her, which I also think is a very interesting dynamic. There's just too much in the character and film for her to work with, I think she would be phenomenal.

It is just so much more than a typical horror film, it definitely stands above your normal run-of-the-mill genre stuff and so it needs better than average actors to pull it off, and I think these guys are simply perfect for the roles.

Miley Cyrus was hilarious in the Jonathan Ross interview

Seriously, never seen an interview with this chick before but that was one of the most entertaining interviews i've ever seen on that show- she gave Wossy a run for his money and it's usually him that's humorously intimidating. She was on the ball and made no qualms about anything and really livened it up, especially when she got up to teach him to dance. Very funny to watch, she's really confident and as Wossy rightfully said- she'll go far in the buisness.
I thought she was fantastic and really stood her own. Wossy can be very intimidating but even he was surprised at her quick and very funny quips and comebacks. She's got a very contagious and funny sense of humour and attitude and in all honesty she was an absoloute joy to watch.

So much better than that Lady Gaga, who is quite possibly one of the dullest people i've seen and imo was one of the most uncomfortable interviews ever to grace that show. She just came off as mentally unstable and try-hard. And i'm guessing there was nothing in that tea-cup she was constantly "drinking" out of either.

I don't see why people say she's immature in the interview, if anything I thought she was just being funny and it worked becuase the audience and Jonathan were laughing with her. I loved it when she explained how Disney and herself spent ages coming up with the title to the movie. I thought she was naturally confident which was great becuase it made for a cracking interview. I don't see why people are complaining about it so much, all the issues with it seem completly trivial and trife.

I thought Miley was endearing, funny and charming in a very wacky way though when she settled down she also answered the questions normally. I didn't see anything wrong with her, sure she may be a little loud but why is that a problem? She's got a funny bursting-at-the-seams personality which was destined to be manifested as a stage and screen entertainer. I didn't think she was childish and if I had any reason to i'd equate it to the fact that she is still young, so it's expected. She's still young, and whilst she may not be the quiet, reserved type that doesn't make her any less of a normal person. She is entertaining, loud and funny to watch and imo oozes charisma and screen presence- everything which has made her famous. She wouldn't be where she is today if it wasn't for who she really is, and that was her.

I see a lot of negativity towards Miley and from my understanding it looks as though it's simply for the fact that she is young and therefore falls into the "young teen brat" category, which I don't really think is very fair at all. She definitly showed an entertaining and upbeat personality in the interview but I also thought she kept within limits and relegated to sillyness when it called for it; unlike a certain GaGa who actually was more of a brat than Miley and half a dozen of those Super Sweet Sixteen teens put together, even though she's older than them and should know better. Though I think it's also unfair to regard Miley as a "SS16" teen becuase the people on there are truly horrid and utterly detestable, to the point of making me feel ill, and Miley isn't like that (or doesn't seem like that) at all, at least not in my view of what I have seen of her.

I'm not saying that that's how most 16 year olds are but a large proportion of them do have certain characteristics which Miley has, being the typical teen poster girl for her age group. But she's an entertainer at heart and of course I believe she is also slightly guilty of playing up to the camera as many celebs sometimes do. Selena Gomez, Demi Lovato et al are all different people and they all have different personalities but that does not mean that one is better than the other simply becuase one is louder/more overly confident than the other and doesn't adhere to your tastes. In time Miley will quieten down but as of right now she's riding the fame wave and I say let her; she works hard and is good at what she does and no doubt deserves everything she is getting. It's who she is and its that which has made her come this far, if she wasn't herself then she wouldn't be a star and she wouldn't be here.

Of course I had a whole wealth of preconceptions about Miley prior to this becuase all I ever hear is bitching and detest regarding her so when I sat down to watch the show I was expecting the worst, but when I was very surprised that I warmed up to her quite quickly and honestly couldn't understand the hate. If she is notorious at being one of the worst teen celebs out there then I think that is a gross overstatment and complete over-exaggeration; there are far worse out there- far worse. I simply wonder where this hatred and negativity comes from, most likely jealousy or basic irritation no doubt, along with the world's love to hate things just for the sake of it; a sad habit that will sadly never cease. Miley just seems like a funny, wacky girl and I found her a joy to watch.

Animatronics= dead?

I've just realised that many big-budget CG movies these days don't even use animatronics anymore in the same way Jurassic Park is famous for using. The JP films, as we all know, use a combination of Stan Winston Studio's (in some cases) life size animatronics for close up/midriff shots of the dinosaurs reacting to sets, props and people etc and ILM's CGI for long full body shots of the dinosaurs doing things otherwise impossible to do via practical animatronics. But i've seen recently that many big CGI movies these days don't use animatronics anymore, instead rather going full CG for the whole show, especially if they are huge dinosaur-sized sentients. Recent examples of this are:

Peter Jackson's King Kong (2005): The prime example. I would have expected this movie to be made similar to the JP movies in terms of using practical and CGI effects but no, this movie's creatures are all full CGI, even down to intricatly detailed close-up shots. Usually they have animatronic heads for when creatures interact with actor in close shots, but that's not the case here. Everything is high detailed CG, close up and long shots. The only "animatronics" were props and machines simulating logs or Kong's hands/arms for the actors to work with, all covered in greenscreen ready to be made into real characters on the computer.

Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy (2003-2006): The undead skeleton pirates are all CG, no animatromics, but most importantly Davy Jones and the Kraken are all fully CG- a very big surprise considering I thought they at least used a fusion of make-up, prosthetics and CGI for Davy's face but apparantly not, Davy is full CG, including his clothes and hat. It's all shot close up too, and amazingly still retains incredible texture, movement and density which before wouldn't have been able to be achieved without practical make-up/prosthetics.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003) Whilst the goblins and other smaller human-sized nasties are actors in prosthetic make-up (except Gollum), the bigger creatures are all full CG. With the exception of Treebeard (who is basically just a massive prop), all the huge monsters here do not have animatronic counterparts. For example, midriff/head shots would be animatronic if it were JP, but here everything is done on the computer, from extreme close ups to long shots (Ballrog, cave-troll, Shelob, Wargs, flying fellbeasts etc, all CG, no animatronics).

Transformers (2007): All the robots are fully CG, close-ups and long shots. The movie does use props and some extentions of the characters are animatronic (eg Scorponok's tail when it attacks people) but otherwise the main robots themselves are all CG.



Star Wars: Attack of the Clones/Revenge of the Sith(2002,2005): All the massive creatures here are all full CG, no animatronic counterparts (case in point the monsters in the Geonosis gladitorial arena such as the Reek, Nexu and Acklay and the Varactyl Boga- that iguana thing which Obi-Wan rides in ROTS) all fully CG, even when reacting with actors.

These are just some of the movies of recent years that I can think of which don't use animatronics, i'm sure there are more i've missed.

So cinema and technology have come to a point where there's no need to have huge practical effects anymore- everything from close-up to long shot can now be done on high quality CG and look just as good, where before having CG for everything was costly so they used to split it up between two mediums. Certainly there was never any problem using full CG for everything, even upclose shots (JP has the Rex and raptors merely a few meteres away from the camera and it still looks amazingly detailed) but there were issues of having CG objects interacting with actors and props. Now however it's not a big problem anymore, current technology can deal with everything. It's not expensive anymore either- certianly now it would probably cost more to make animatronics as well as CGI- two different types of things which then involves blending them both together, which is yet more work. Not to mention the hours of difficult labour having massive animatronics on set. It's a lot of work when one can now sort it out with CG which now, in some cases, looks even better than animatronics (when time and effort of course are put into it). Why have an animatronic with limited movement as a close up when you can have a full CG object close up which can do anything and everything? (Imagine having Kong's close ups with a large animatronic head...really wouldn't look as good at all, especially in conveying emotions and expression. This is where CGI for everything works so well as one seamless creature).

All these current movies have no animatronics in there becuause it's now easier and cost effective to do everything with CG and have it looking just as good (King Kong the very best example of this). JP3 was all the way back in 2001 where it made sense by using the traditional ILM/Stan Winston method, but massive leaps in CG technology has been made since then. So, do you think the next JP movie will still use animatronics when films can now be made easily without it? Looking at it now, I really can't think why they should...

I'd like it to keep tradition but the fact is that buisness-wise it would be expensive to do both- they would probably relegate it to one medium to keep it cost effective. Stan Winston Studios would of course still be used in the design process (every dinosaur in the JP films has been designed by them of course) but i'm not sure if they would still make huge animatronic dinosaurs anymore. Maybe smaller ones like raptors and such but still, movies nowaydays use CGI for everything.

The only recent movie I can think of where they had huge animatronics as well as CGI was the Queen in AVP:Alien vs Predator in 2004, but this was mainly becuase their budget didn't allow it to go full CG. The Alien Queen was both animatronic and CG, though I think this was becuase the Queen is a creature which just looks and moves better as an animatronic rather than a CG one (the skin and sheen for example all look more realistic when made out of real material).



Dinosaurs on the other hand are living, breathing animals much closer to today's animals than the Alien Queen..they sweat, they tear, they have much more complicated skin and skin mechanics including muscle, bone and tissue which move and react...all of which can easily be done on a computer these days and, with the right SFX house behind it, can look much much better than a model.



I believe Spielberg is quoted to have said that animatronics solicits better performances from the human actors, as the actors have something to play to. Getting eyeline/eyefocus right when you want a face-to-face shot, that sort of thing. Shooting around that (ie: no face shots of actors looking at CGI on the same frame) limits the director's vision. Perhaps the future is crude models for the director and actor's benefit, and CGI all the way...

But guess what- even Spielberg has moved on since then! His War of the Worlds adaptation in 2005 had no animatronics, not even for the small aliens (especially in the sequence where he replicates his JP "raptors in the kitchen" sequence with the two children in the basement). Whereas in JP he used animatronics and CGI for the raptors, in WOTW it's all CGI aliens, even for the close-ups. The tripods were of course just too big to be made with animatronics, so that's understandable. The only practical effects in this movie were the fallen tripods and weeds. So it looks like Spielberg has embraced the wonders of full CGI now too.

He also produced Transformers, which as I already mentioned had no major animatronics. He will most likely produce Jurassic Park 4 as well, and I think he'll probably give a thumbs up to full CGI there too.

I think it has become easier for actors to work agianst nothing as they are now well versed and experienced in it as opposed to before when it was a new thing and therfore harder, though most of the time it's not really against thin air. SFX guys usually have stand-ins for the actors to work agianst, and though it may not be much it's at least an eyeline. Nowadays of course they have actors who mo-cap the performance of their character; Andy Serkis as Gollum or Bill Nighy as Davy Jones for example, who act as their respective character which will later be replaced with a CG version- this eradicates the problem of other actors with nothing to work with, especially when conveying emotion and drama from their performance as it is all now done in-camera.

I just think that technology has moved on so much that everything can be done with full CGI in a live action movie now- and, as movies like King Kong have shown us, all look good as one seamless art rather than breaking it up between different mediums. Though new technolgy is being created everyday, James Cameron's new film Avatar will have such technology never seen before as it has been invented just for it, and all of that is done on the computer with no practical work whatsoever, not even for the alien characters. A recent magazine writer who some some test footage was reportadly so amazed he said "I couldn't tell what was real or not". So maybe the time of animatronics is coming to an end, who knows. Movies have to keep ahead of the game to impress audiences who know all to well what's CGI and what's not, I don't think a new JP movie could work with traditional animatronics anymore when people demand so much more from their special effects now. People just get turned off when they can see what's "fake".

I think, personally, that this is just down to Weta's lesser results of CGI amongst blue/green screen work. This is of course their biggest problem, and it's been complained about many times; their greenscreen compositing work is just very poor compared to ILM's- take for instance the infamous Brontosaur stampede in Kong which is the best example of their worst work, just really bad greenscreening, especially on the actors in that scene who are so poorly composited it's pretty much embarassing they even left it in. Even The Lord of the Rings films have the same issue.

ILM however don't have this problem- as seen in the Pirates of the Caribbean movies (which I see as some of their best work to date), Davy Jones and his crew are all filmed on greenscreen and superimposed onto real locations and sets- and the result is seamless, much better than what Weta has done. Though one can argue that even ILM have their bad days, as seen in the Star Wars prequels (absoloutly atrocious greenscreen compositing work, especially in Attack of the Clones, but this agian is most likely down to excessive workload which I guess was the case with King Kong, which is why some things look amazing and some things look like crap). However I don't expect a JP movie to have CG output on that huge scale considering the films are usually split greater on the human side than dinosaur action, so the CG work would probably be on a good scale.

Either way Kong is a great example of CG work but a bad example of greenscreening. But other movies (Pirates) have shown that this isn't a problem in the right hands. And considering ILM will be doing the CG work in the next JP film, I don't think it's ever going to be a problem for them. JP3 and even The Lost World: Jurassic Park had a lot of close-up composting done, and it all looked great.

Review: Outlander (Howard McCain, 2008)

Sci-fi, monsters, and medieval vikings- what's not to like?

This really wasn't bad at all! Chronicles of Riddick vs Predator vs Beowulf/Vikings is the simplest way to describe it, and what an entertaining film it was- this is pure B movie hokum executed with panache and surprisingly much better than I thought it would be, and a lot better than the usual nonsense which normally plague our screens. Medieval fantasy, monsters, brutal carnage, explosive action and blood and guts with a sci-fi twist- I had a great time with this film.

The story revolves around Kainen (Jim Caveziel), whose space ship crash lands from a distant planet into medieval Norway- and he's accidentally bought an evil creature along with him. He must gain the trust of vikings and their leader, King Rothgar (played by John Hurt), in order to defeat this monster who destroyed his land and is now threatening theirs. Using brains, wits and, swords and old fashioned brute force, Kainen is also forced to unite warring viking tribes to defeat their common enemy- this monstrous creature known as the "Moorwen".

Acting is solid all round from Caveziel and Hurt, with a small role by Ron Perlman, as well as a cast of unknowns. Production may be cheap but the CGI effects look decent and the visuals giving a good scope of epic medieval Norway. It's not without it's flaws of course (acting and dialogue occasionally leave a lot to be desired and sometimes it's cliché as hell) but sit back and turn your brain off and enjoy it as it's a very entertaining and well made low budget action/fantasy flick which harks back to the time when we fell in love with films like this in the first place.

It's shameful that this is one of the best films of it's type iv'e seen in a long time (since at least Pitch Black) in a time crowded with films like it- films like AVP and AVPR have a lot to answer for when a film like this comes out of nowhere and manages to be better than both films combined- considering both have nearly the same budgets and ridiculous premise, Outlander blows both out of the water. My expectations were low here but I was surprised- Outlander is also at times generic as hell too but it is still far superior to a lot of films today in terms of directing, design, effects and action, and some of the ideas and sequences are also very inspired. It's also got some surprisingly good CGI, art and design as well! The "Moorwen" creature itself was actually well done too and they thought about it's origins well, and even put effort into making us understand it's actual perspective in the fight instead of it just being a random monster out to kill. The characterisation is not deep or anything but the little touches of effort were much appreciated.

It's not perfect by any means but it's definitely of a high class despite it's low calibre production, definitely recommended for those who love a a bit of old-skool monster/sci-fi and medieval action. The execution may be generic and cliché at times but the story is fantastic and the film is just entertaining as a whole, a true classic B monster movie. I wouldn't have minded if it was sci-fi/futuristic action with monsters anyway but the whole old Norse viking/Beowulf aspect sold it for me completely (I love epic myths and barbarians and whatnot) and what a cool mix it was.

This is one of those films that will become a cult classic over time just as Pitch Black did, though it already seems to be garnering positive attention already.

7/10

Review: Ratatouille (Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava, 2007)

I'll be honest, I wasn't looking forward to this movie much as from the surface it looked like yet another predictable Disney/Pixar movie (to which i get tired of all too quickly). However it's actually slightly more than that- but only slightly. As well as boasting excellent animation and visuals as standard for a Pixar film, the film also has a strong story with a simple and assertive moral at it's core. Characters here (well, the human ones anyway) are predictable and, for me anyway, highly unlikeable. The film is set in France and so the characters are all stereotypically French- stuck up, arrogant and full of ego (coincidentally one character's name, a highly detestable food critic, is actually called Ego). Even the careless and clumsy main character Languini who we are supposed to sympathise didn't do much for me, he came across as another predictable idiot in the "hapless moron"role that i didn't care for in the slightest. The animals, in this case the rats, are lovable mostly due to their excellent animations and expressions. The main rat, Remy, was brilliantly animated and his movements were excellent, specially when we see him scurry around as the camera shifts to a low perspective so we can see things from his point of view. The simple story is told well, surprisingly in a slightly more mature fashion than usual (younger children may even find it boring as the pace and tone of the film is actually more suited to a drama aimed at an older audience). Characters aside it's the story that shines and the moral which delivers- both are which entertaining suitably straightforward yet not predictable in their executions. The message it conveys is touching and to the point without being too over-dramatic, contrived and overly sentimental.

Not a classic film in any way but an enjoyable one with fantastic imagery and a nice charm as expected by Pixar, but in my honest opinion nothing really special as to warrant it spectacular.

6/10

Review: Superbad (Greg Mottola, 2007)

Very funny- destined to be a classic!

Seriously, I thought comedy films were failing as every comedy film I have seen lately has been far from it- then I saw this little gem. I expected (from the trailers) that it would an average high-school movie similar to something from a Nickelodeon/Disney Channel show- i was so wrong! A minute in and these kids are talking about stuff you'd expect from an adult comedy, cursing and swearing all the way- it just threw me off.

It is an adult comedy but the fact that it all happens at high-school with young kids is what gives it it's charm, and unlike American Pie it doesn't have to do severe silly/OTT/gross-out jokes to get it's laughs- it relies on expert performances, comic timing of the superb dialogue and brilliantly ironic situations- which ae all acted out with excellence. Rarely have i see everything work so great in tandem and laughed my ass off watching it.

The humour here is hilarious (some of the skits literally had me in stitches), it's just normal everyday dialogue but with added wit which makes it that much better. The performances were also fantastic- Jonah Hill really stole the show and has the skills of an accomplished comedian- at that age he should be proud because he makes professionals look bad. Christopher Mintz-Plasse is great too and Fogel is destined to become an iconic character. Also special kudos to Seth Rogen who is always a pleasure to watch, and to Micheal Cera who was brilliant in Juno and excellent in this.

All in all a really fun film, glad i saw it as i haven't laughed so much in ages- it gives me faith that amongst trash like Meet the Spartans and Chuck and Larry you have films like this that really know how to do things properly. The people behind 40Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up and now Superbad really have got it on and I look forward to all their future projects! Good, honest entertainment. I loved it.

8/10

Review: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (Peter Sollett, 2008)

I was really looking forward to this, but what a complete letdown! Atrocious acting, terrible humour, completely predictable and characters I just wanted to punch for being so damn annoying.

I liked the music though and there was a certain charm to it, but everything else spoilt it. The characters were annoying and completely braindead (Ari Graynor who plays Corina for example is a drunken embarrassment throughout the entire film; ridiculous, slutty and embarrassingly pathetic), Kat Dennings is just irritating as Norah and though I like Micheal Cera, here he's just his usual self again (typecasted), it's like he plays the same role over and over and here he plays Nick which again is pretty much the exact same role all over again- a pathetic and unconfident loser. Alexis Dziena who play's Nick's ex was also just playing to all that character's cliché conventions of a stereotypical jealous bitch. I liked the fact that Nick's band members were gay and not cliché but they were still dumbasses. The comedy was terrible- I'm not a fan of immature gross-out humour but this tried too hard to try and be funny with it, it just came off as unnecessary and predictable and cheapened the movie more. What we should have got was a sweet and charming film, what we got was a misplaced charm in a very tacky and unfunny and frustratingly bad film.

I had to literally force myself to sit and watch it the whole way through and give it a chance but it was just went from good to bad to worse. I guess I wanted another Juno (which I loved) but what I got was another braindead teen comedy masquerading as it. I wish I didn't waste my time over it.

A terrible teen movie and the worst film I have seen so far of 2009.

3/10

Shadow of the Colossus is to be made into a movie...

So once again, Hollywood comes along, takes one of my favourite games/series and attempts to turn it into a movie...at the expense of the fans which will suffer once more. This time around it's Shadow of the Colossus- a game so mind blowing in it's premise that honestly there's no proper way of bringing it onto the screen, but of course the corporate fatcats will deem to try anyway. There's no hope for it whatsoever, as usual, and especially since it is written by Justin Marks, who just recently did the diabolical Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li. It's also being produced by Kevin Kisher, who has been credited to The Scorpion King, another terrible film. Hollywood just don't know dick about adapting video games into movies, and they certainly won't know sh!t about this one either, especially considering how radical the game is. They should just leave it the hell alone.

SotC won't work unless it's a CGI movie. But I swear they'll try and make it like 300. Every fantasy movie wants to be like that nowadays, or like The Lord of the Rings- they never turn out like it, and it definitely won't for this. Cases in point: Eragon and In The Name of the King. Epic Fails. They will probably make it IMAX 3D now too, like everything else. It's the new gimmick, and they won't dismiss the fact that some of the scenes would look awesome on a massive screen with the new 3D technology. They'll probably wait for James Cameron's Avatar to come out to see how it effectively works there and then go in that direction. After all, they don't know sh!t about adding depth to the movie via writing, they'll just be spending money to wow audiences with special effects.

I wonder what Team Ico have to say about this- why did they sell the rights in the first place, anyway? They are supposed to be non-mainstream.

All my favourite games have had crappy movies made out of them bar a few, so there's not much hope.

Resident Evil has been messed up completly already- 3 crappy flicks and another 2 on the way.
Street Fighter- one unintentionally hilarious movie, another that is actually even worse. The animated movie however is king.
Mortal Kombat- Okay I loved the first one as a kid, twas was epic. And it was the first movie I can remember which had techno music with the fighting/action scenes...waaaay before The Matrix ever made it cool. And the soundtrack is killer. Underrated!
Mortal Kombat Annihilation- Pathetic. A new reboot dubbed "Devastation" is on the way (one can only hope it's good but again I doubt it).
Double Dragon- just plain silly.
Super Mario Bros. was terrible, but has somewhat grown on me after all these years.
Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within A decent sci-fi movie, nothing to do with the games though.
Final Fantasy: Advent Children- ridiculously crap film, 2 hours of Tekken style FMVs counting as "fan service"; no plot, no direction, no nothing.
Doom was bad.
D.O.A: Dead or Alive- dumb fun, but still shyte.
Bloodrayne- Awful.
Bloodrayne 2: Deliverance- Even worse.
The House of the Dead- Worse still.
House of the Dead 2- Worser than worse.
Alone in the Dark- Am I dead yet?
Max Payne- weak.
Silent Hill FINALLY! IMO, perfect. I loved it- but that's what you get from a director who is also a big fan in real life.

Next up, more of my favourite franchises being laid to waste:

Tekken Could go either way at this point but will most likely fail.
Castlevania Another epic fail, specially since it's Paul Anderson.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein- promising especially with the decent director pushing for the hard R rating.
and now Shadow of the Colossus

And even worse, rumours abound that Uwe Boll wants to make a Legacy of Kain movie next. Someone kill him, now.

Saying that, my favourite survival horror game Haunting Ground would work as a fantastic film only if Guillermo Del Toro directed it. He's got the visual style and ideas to bring it to life, and when I was watching Pan's Labyrinth it's amazing how some of the colours and tone match the game. Either him or Dario Argento (who's films the game was heavily inspired by) would be perfect. But i'm rooting for Del Toro. But that's wishful thinking of course and would never turn out like that, I really wouldn't want anyone to touch the game, it's a perfect little masterpiece which again should be left alone.

Either way, time to say goodbye once again to one of my most beloved games.

Review: Underworld (Len Wiseman, 2003)

Solid story, generic execution

Not a bad film by any means, but with a lot of flaws. Whilst it's foundations are superb with it's vision of Gothic grandeur and historical mythology, the film unfortunately falls short because of it's ultimately generic execution. The story is fantastic- Romeo and Juliet with vampires as suitably described by the filmmakers. A centuries old war between vampires and werewolves which spills forth into our present day world (the city in which the film takes place is never revealed but it is European, probably Budapest or Hungary). The writers have done a great job fleshing out a history for the plot and weaving in a lot of historical myth and legend which gives the story a lot of strong background, and I was very impressed as it works a treat.

The acting is also superb all round, most standout being Micheal Sheen as Lucian and Bill Nighy as Viktor who have fantastic characters and really play their parts well. Kate Beckinsale was also very good in the lead despite her unoriginal role as Selene- an expendable "death dealer". Of course all the characters themselves are unoriginal but the actors really give them high class quality which is very appreciated, all their talents make up for it.

Now on to whats wrong with the picture- which is everything else. The visuals and design is what makes it lose marks- there is just nothing original or unique here whatsoever. The style is clearly lifted from The Matrix, and whilst it worked in those films well here it's just tiresome. The vampires are high-class aristocratic wearing Gothic gowns and other cliché attire that is now associated with them, sipping wine, wearing black leather, big boots, long flowing leather jackets; Selene wears skin-tight leather and wields dual guns and jumps and back-flips all over the place in slow-motion, guns fire all around and people fall and fly high with hidden wires. Wev'e just seen it all before, and done better. This has all been done to death ever since the first Matrix film came out and here it's just yet another poor imitation. Given the solid and original background story for this film I was hoping for an equally rich and diverse style for the look as well, and sadly all we get is a tiresome Matrix rip off. It really does lower the quality of the film, really. As a designer myself I was really hoping for something cool, they could have had a lot of fun in the design phase sculpting a world which houses the great story but unfortunately is just exactly the same as the dark, gloomy and rainy world of Matrix and The Crow, with a hint of Blade. I know it's hard these days to come up with something new but still, there was a good opportunity here to put in a fresh spin, a comic-book style coolness here but they opted for the safe Matrix style slo-mo and leather costumes rip-off which so often plague our screens. People seem to love it, I really am tired of it.

Directing again is so-so. Whilst Len Wiseman does a decent job on his first directorial debut there's still a lot of improvement that can be made, though kudos to him anyway for doing well on his first try. The choreography is decent though the action scenes as I mentioned earlier are dire- everything looks cliché and at times awful, they really should have thought about it better. The effects look dumb and the werewolves in particular look terrible. The transformations are really cringe-worthy and the actual creature suits are equally cheap looking (some scenes are an absolute joke). Worse still are the performances of them- the creature performers half the time just waddle around and the animatronics hardly move at all making it look even more dumb, and the fights involving them are really painful to watch, especially when there have been a ton of good similar werewolf films like Dog Soldiers which did a better job. The vampires again just act typically cliché, snarling and jumping- we've just seen it all before so many times. Some of the CGI effects are on the bad side but thankfully the computer effects are kept to a minimum- director Wiseman opted to shoot everything practical, and whilst this is great as everything looks raw and gritty I just wish the werewolf suits and acting was better so it would all work together. Again better directing would have masked the low grade suits, but unfortunately everything is on show.

All in all an entertaining movie with a solid story that is really not bad at all for a first entry in a propose trilogy by a first time director. Whilst I enjoyed delving into the world I just wish it was realised better, there was ample room for scope but they went with a cliché Matrix design both in look and vibe which I really didn't like at all. If only they did something more original, as the story is so well done they really needed the universe to be equally good too. Still, I look forward to the ongoing saga as the plot is interesting and is now just getting started.

4/10