THE KARATE KID (2010).

While I enjoyed the original, it never was one of those "untouchable classics of my childhood." I mean, I've probably only seen the whole thing 2 or 3 times. Needless to say, I wasn't up in arms about the remake... if you can even call it a remake. It does take the basic plot and structure of the original, but changes everything else. Hell, it's not even Karate; it's Kung Fu (as even Jaden Smith angrily declares to his mother at one point).

For those of you who don't already know, the story follows Dre Parker (Jaden Smith) and his mother (Taraji P. Henson) as they move to Beijing, China once his mother gets a job there. Dre is not happy about this. To escalate his unhappiness, he immediately makes enemies, specifically with a boy named Cheng (Zhenwei Wang) who know Kung Fu. But he also makes a couple friends, including a love interest named Meiying (Wenwen Han). But after Dre gets beat up one too many times, the apartment maintenance man, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan), saves Dre from a pack of boys beating the crap out of him. Long story short, Mr. Han is forced to teach Dre Kung Fu after getting him signed up in a Kung Fu Tournament to take on the boys and their Kung Fu dojo.

I know one of the biggest things everybody was worried about was Jaden Smith in the role due to past acting issues (primarily The Day The Earth Stood Still). While there are a couple rough lines here and there, he actually does really well. In fact, there are a couple comedic moments where you can definitely see his father shining through (with timing and delivery). Jackie Chan also does well, taking on a more serious role than he has in quite a few years. He might have one or two funny lines (if that), but for the most part, he plays it straight, and it's interesting to see. He even has a real emotional moment that both he and Jaden handle nicely. There's a really good chemistry between the two. And, of course, Taraji P. Henson is pretty good as Sherry Parker, Dre's mother. As for the rest of the cast? Well...Wenwen Han isn't too bad as the love interest, and Zhenwei Wang is brutal and menacing as the main bully... but everybody else is pretty rough. Granted, there aren't all that many other characters besides the ones I just mentioned, but there are a handful (like Dre's friend in Detroit and Dre's first friend in China) that aren't really all that great.

The action we get is brutal (in a good way). There was more than one occasion where I winced. But Kung Fu is always fun to watch (at least for me). And Jaden made it very believable. The training sequences are a lot of fun, as we should expect. They were the highlight of the original, after all (there are some homages to the original, too, like a moment where Mr. Han is waxing his car... or practicing the crane stance). If there's any negative aspect of the action, it's that the camera really walked that border between tolerable and Bourne Supremacy. It never got too bad, though, as you could almost always tell what was going on. However, there were a couple strange moments where you could almost tell the hit didn't make contact, yet there was still the reaction of being hit.

My biggest problem is that the movie takes almost too long to get going. The movie is nearly two and a half hours, but the first 30 minutes or so is just Jaden either getting beat up, hiding, or trying to flirt with Meiying. I know it's setting up the stage for character connections and development, but I think there might have been just one "Jaden getting beat up" scene too many. By the time Jackie Chan actually stepped in to help, and we began the second act, I had started to get a bit antsy. However, once the second act does start, the movie moves pretty fast and it's all good fun.

Overall, this movie wasn't the disaster most people expected it to be. It was actually a good remake(?). It had good acting (from the leads), a good story, good comedy, and great action. Sure it was highly predictable in almost every aspect, but what else did you expect? It was good entertainment all around.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET.

Believe it or not, I typically don't go to see the horror remakes of classic horror films in theater. The last one I think I saw in theater was Texas Chainsaw Massacre, which I think was one of the first. I actually only recently saw Rob Zombie's Halloween and the new Friday the 13th (the latter just a couple weeks ago). And they're all pretty much crap. But Freddy is different. Freddy isn't the silent, faceless killer like Michael Myers, Jason Vorhees, or Leatherface. No, he has a face... a burnt face, but a face... and quite a mouth. And while I'm not an uber-fan of the original series (I think I've maybe seen two of them all the way through, not counting Freddy vs. Jason), I do like the character of Freddy Krueger, as well as his portrayal by Robert Englund. So to hear that not only were they doing a remake, but that Englund wasn't going to return, I was worried. But then I heard that he was being replaced by Jackie Earle Haley, and I felt better. But were my new-found feelings justified?

The movie is essentially about a bunch of kids who start getting killed off in their dreams by a burnt man with knives on his fingers named Freddy Krueger (Jackie Earle Haley). The main bunch includes Nancy (Rooney Mara), Quentin (Kyle Gallner), Kris (Katie Cassidy), Jesse (Thomas Dekker), and Dean (Kellan Lutz). So why is Freddy after them? Well, let's just say it's a revenge story--he was once a gardener at a preschool accused of being a pedophile, and the parents took justice into their own hands by burning him alive.

That's pretty much the story. The whole movie is just Freddy going after the "kids" as they try to stay awake and figure out what the hell is going on. Story-wise, there's really not much there. If you know the original film(s), there should be no surprises as to Freddy's backstory, which is basically the whole mystery of the movie. So in other words, you're just there to see the kills and scares.

The scares are all jump scares. The music will get quiet, everything will pause for a moment, and then BAM, Freddy appears from nowhere accompanied by a jolt of music. Did they scare me? Sure... but they're still forced scares. It's not a "oh my God this is so creepy" kind of scare. It's not the kind of scary where I won't be able to sleep at night. As for the kills, there is surprisingly little blood in this movie. And whenever there's large amounts, it's typically super-CGI.

Which brings me to one of my first big complaints. The movie relied pretty strongly on CGI. What's pretty cool about the original is that everything is practical. When Freddy pushes his face through the wall in the original? Practical. In the remake? Purely CGI. When blood gushes onto a ceiling in the original? It looks real. In the remake? Super fake (not to mention much, much shorter in time and in less amount). I think this is one of the first times where a modern remake doesn't try to out-gore the original. And for a movie like this, that's kinda lame.

I'm not going to bother getting into the acting, except for one. Jackie Earle Haley was superb as Freddy. I mean, he's no Robert Englund, but if they aren't going to have Robert back, Jackie was the next best thing. He has the voice down, and he's absolutely vicious. He even, toward the end, had some of Freddy's jokes and puns, which he pulled off nicely. The only issue I had with Freddy was his look. I know they wanted to make him look like a more realistic burn victim, but it just came off as fake. Parts of his face was too smooth, too plastic looking, especially in comparison to the original, which had deep pits and ugly scars. And I'm pretty sure they even did CGI on part of his face (trying to pull off a semi-Two-Face kinda thing), but I can't be certain there. But if they did, that's totally lame.

The cinematography was actually really good, keeping the movie dream-like and stylized. It was hard to tell sometimes what was a dream and what was real. Though I particularly liked the pharmacy scene, where it flashed back and forth between the real and dream worlds. Also, there are some nice moments recreated from the original movie (like the bathtub scene, though it doesn't go on like it does in the original).

So it was pretty decent, especially for a classic horror remake. Freddy was perfectly cast since they couldn't get Robert Englund. The second half of the movie, I felt, was better than the first half. The first half focused strongly on little plot, dream sequences, and the Kris and Jesse characters. The second half was more on figuring out the mystery while focusing on Nancy and Quentin (and the dream sequences were cleverer, and some were straight from the original). Overall, the movie had some issues, from the minor and up, but it was still decent entertainment, mostly thanks to Jackie Earle Haley, who boosted it up a point or two in my ratings from what it could have been.


I Am McLovin!

CLASH OF THE TITANS.

I haven't seen the original since I was in high school, but I remember its cheesiness (and the mechanical owl). But I was still incredibly excited for this remake. I love Greek mythology, and this movie looked totally epic. It tells the story of demigod Perseus (Sam Worthington) who, after his family is destroyed by Hades (Ralph Fiennes), is taken to the blasphemous town of Argus, where they hate on the gods and want to overturn their rule. Well, Zeus (Liam Neeson) doesn't like that, so he's easily talked into a little plan by his brother, Hades. In 10 days time, Hades will summon the Titan-killing beast, the Kraken, and destroy Argus and every person inside unless they decide to sacrifice the beautiful Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos). But Perseus, being a demigod, is foretold to have the power to defeat the Kraken, despite him only wanting to destroy Hades in vengeance. So Perseus must go on a journey, along with a band of other soldiers, as well as the immortal and all-knowing Io (Gemma Arterton), to discover how to defeat the Kraken and then return before it's too late.

The movie starts off kinda shaky. Up until Perseus gets to Argus, and even arguably up until they leave on their journey, the movie suffers from plot-point jumping. For what feels at least 15 minutes (or more) of the movie, it's simply going from one brief scene to the next, setting up plot points necessary for the film or characters. It just feels a bit jumpy and disjointed at that point. However, once he gets to Argus, the film slows down a bit, and then once he begins his journey, it really finds its stride.

The best thing about the movie, of course, are the visuals. The visuals are frakkin' fantastic. Some of the best I've ever seen in a movie not titled Avatar. It isn't all CGI, either. There is actually a fair balance of CGI and animatronics in the film... and even some old-school guys-in-costumes (really reminded me of Guillermo del Toro at times). But what is CGI is seamless. From the giant scorpions to the Pegasus to the Kraken itself, everything looks stunning. The only CGI shortcoming, I think, is Medusa, who reminded me of a better-done version of the Scorpion King from The Mummy Returns. But regardless of it being better done, it still looked fake, especially in comparison to the other effects in the film.

As it is a remake, I'm sure people are wondering how it compares to the original. Well, like I said before, I don't remember a whole bunch from the original, but I do remember snippets. There is a funny homage to the original with the metallic owl that was a good laugh. The original didn't have Hades as the bad guy, I don't believe, and I think Perseus fell in love with Andromeda in the original (which isn't the case here). Instead, Io replaces Athena as Perseus' helper, and you can say there is a bit of a connection there. Also (doing a bit of research here on the original), the Calibos character is a bit different, if that matters to you.

The only real major issue I had, besides the choppy beginning, is the fact that I really didn't know or care for any of the secondary characters. Besides Perseus, Andromeda, Io, Zeus, and Hades... I couldn't even tell you their names. I mean, you like them because of their personalities (the funny one, the stoic one, the newbie), but that's about as far as it goes. There are even a pair of characters that seem incredibly promising, but the film basically dismisses them as plot contrivances.

Otherwise, the film was a ton of fun. The action was awesome, but what else would you expect from Louis Leterrier, the man who brought us Unleashed? So to wrap this up, go for the action, the visuals (including creatures and cinematography), and the Greek myth fun. There's even a fair bit of humor in it, too. The film isn't perfect, but it's still a load of fun.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Maybe I'm just getting too nit-picky, but the supposedly gods-hating general dude telling Perseus to accept help from the gods and pray to them for help... it seemed a bit out of character. But then again, maybe he didn't care if Perseus did it, since Perseus was there to help them survive. I'll go with that.)

Why Haven't They Made This Yet? #3

[Do you know what I find even more annoying than the constant wave of remakes, reboots, sequels/prequels, and comic book and video game adaptations? People complaining about remakes, reboots, sequels/prequels, and comic book and video game adaptations. Seriously, all I ever hear these days is 'waah, why aren't there any fresh ideas? Everything is (see above) nowadays!' And frankly, I'm getting really tired of it. So instead of joining the ranks, I'm going to embrace all said types of film, and I will be celebrating it in a segment I like to call... "Why haven't they made this yet?"] 

Man, I haven't done this in a while, but I was inspired today while watching the original (especially so close to viewing Where The Wild Things Are) that I had to do it. 

Title: Labyrinth.

Type: Remake. 

About: Almost everybody remembers this trippy classic. It was the film that pretty much launched the career of Jennifer Connelly. As a fantasy (on a magical realism level) full of puppets and a pseudo-musical (with everything written and sung by David Bowie, the film's antagonist), Labyrinth works on many levels. A lot of its visual effects don't hold up today, and with what modern cinema has at its fingertips, this movie could be redone as a modern classic... if done right.

Film Possibilities

Genre: Similar to the original, it would be a trippy, puppet-driven fantasy/pseudo-musical for children and/or young adults.

Why This Movie Could Work: Where The Wild Things Are. If anything was outstanding in that recent film, it was the puppetry and men-in-suits work. Movies have come a long way in the realm of realism and puppets, and if the same people were involved as were with "Wild Things," this film could be outstanding visually. 

Story: Similar to the original, a spoiled girl named Sarah is tired of having to give up her time to babysit her baby brother so her parents can go out. So in a fit of anger, she offers up her brother to the Goblin King, but immediately regrets it. She travels to the Labyrinth and discovers she has 13 hours to get to the middle, through the Goblin City, and to the castle to save her brother before he's turned into a goblin forever. Along the way, she makes friends who help her find her way through the dangerous maze.

In the remake, though, I'm sure there would be the want to detract the magical realism and make Sarah freak out about the whole thing instead of act like everything she sees and experiences is as common as rain. I'd hope that would stay in to keep with the fantastical feel of the story. At the same time, though, maybe the remake could add a bit to the characters of Sarah and possibly the Goblin King to make them more rounded and relatable characters. 

Director: My first instinct, of course, is Spike Jonze (as long as he stays away from Dave Eggers in the script department). For the most part, he did good things with "Wild Things." I could also suggest Tim Burton, who would take this already whacked-out story and, dare I say, make it even crazier and more surreal. Plus he's had the experience with musicals (Sweeny Todd). But he'd probably cast Johnny Depp as the Goblin King, and I have other ideas for him. But I'm gonna go out there and say that I'd like to see another artistic take on it by hiring Guillermo del Toro. He's done his own puppetry work (Hellboy I and II, Pan's Laybrinth). And especially with the aforementioned "Labyrinth" film, I know he could make one heck of a magical realism/fantastical film. 

Cast: I'm gonna stick away from the voice actors for now, though I dare say del Toro should hire Doug Jones for a lot of the men-in-suits bits. Boy that would be a nice paycheck, wouldn't it? My main concerns are the protagonist and antagonist: Sarah and the Goblin King.

First, who would take over for the classic Jennifer Connelly role? There aren't a ton of young actresses who I could see taking the role. Dakota Fanning is too young. I could suggest the hot up-and-comer Emma Stone for the role. I'd say it's what she'd really need to break out, but I think Zombieland just did that. Plus, I'm not sure if she could grab the emotion of the role too well.

That's why I'm going controversial. I'm gonna say the role should go to Kristen Stewart. I know, her Twilight role makes her look like she has the depth of a teaspoon, but I know this girl can act (see: Speak or Adventureland). She can also be the dark, broody girl required of the part. Plus... she actually kinda looks like Jennifer Connelly did at that age.

Then we have our villain, the Goblin King. Famously portrayed by David Bowie, the character needs to be able to sing. The actor should also have an androgynous feel to him, as well as not look ridiculous in eyeliner. I really only had two suggestions. If we were going the "older" route, I'd say Anthony Head. We know the guy can sing (see: Buffy's "Once More With Feeling" or Repo! The Genetic Opera). And he's no stranger to the fantasy realm. But I sincerely doubt they'd go that risky and pick a guy that 1) isn't overly attractive, 2) isn't well known by the mass population, and 3) isn't a draw for the young crowd.

That's why I think the perfect person for this role would be recent American Idol almost-winner Adam Lambert. He can do the falsetto. He can dress up in tights and eyeliner and still look good (he did it every week on Idol). He already has the hair for the role. And he falls into the young, attractive, and popular crowd. He'd certainly draw in the big bucks. Not to mention (in my opinion) he has a great voice.

And that's pretty much all there is to this edition. Thoughts?