Filming of the Batman Begins sequel, The Dark Knight, has moved to Hong Kong this month but early into production there, it has already hit some snags.

The movie, which will be directed again by Christopher Nolan, is supposed to have a scene where Batman (Christian Bale) jumps from a plane into Hong Kong harbor. But that scene had to be omitted when the producers found out that the water quality in the harbor was too dangerous to swim in.

Based on samples gathered in the area prior to filming, the water was contaminated with all sorts of deadly organisms like the ones that cause salmonella and tuberculosis. The findings meant that the scene had to be cut and now the plan is just to cut to the building immediately.

Even World Wildlife Fund officials confirm that the water in Hong Kong harbor is too dangerous to swim in. Even Batman is no match for virulent organisms.

The Eye was one of the creepiest horror movies I’ve seen. When it was first released everybody was raving about it. The Pang brothers did an excellent job directing the movie and its lead actress Angelica Lee was so effective in her role as the blind woman who was given an eye transplant but starts seeing ghosts that she won several awards for her portrayal.

But just like any other successful Asian movie, a Hollywood remake is quite inevitable. Now, the film is finished and is scheduled to be released in February 2008. The remake now stars Jessica Alba as the blind girl, upping the sexy factor a thousandfold. Alessandro Nivola will play the role of the doctor who helps her. Parker Posey will also have a role in the movie.

The teaser trailer is now available online but I just have to post the poster for the movie, which I think is very cool.

When it comes to comedy, Mel Brooks is one of my all time heroes. The man may not be as popular as Steve Martin, Robin Williams or Steve Carrel (for moviegoers with the memory span of an ant), but even these big stars worship at the altar of Brooks.

What makes Brooks so special? Well, for one it was from his mind that some of the best comedy classics sprung up. Steve Martin may have The Jerk (I can’t even think of a definitive Williams movie) but Brooks can boast of The History of The World, Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Dracula Dead and Loving It, and most importantly, The Producers.

The Producers may be one of his most popular works because of its wonderful evolution. The movie is about a pair of bumbling Broadway producers who wanted to make the worst musical in history so that they can earn more money but they inadvertently created a hit and all the trouble ensues from there. The movie, which was shown in 1968, starred the wonderful Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder (who I absolutely miss. You should be doing more movies, Gene!), then a few years ago, it was turned into a hit Broadway musical that starred the duo of Nathan Lane (as Max Bialystock) and Matthew Broderick (as Leo Bloom). The musical gained so many Tony awards that the inevitable had to happen — they decided to turn it into a movie.

The Producers was turned into a movie musical with Lane and Broderick reprising their award winning roles. In a way, the decision to make this movie is a stroke of genius because it gives people the opportunity to watch Broderick and Lane and how well they comandeered their respective roles without forking over cash to go to New York and watch the actual musical. Honestly, how many people can really afford to go these musicals especially those who live in another country? Adapting the broadway hit to the movie was made effortless with the involvement of Susan Stroman, who also directed and choreographed the Broadway show.

What can I say about Lane or Broderick that hasn’t been said before. They really owned their roles. They were so effective that the moment you see them on screen you already believe that you are watching the gold digging Bialystock and the security blanket-loving Bloom. They incorporate their own little personalities into the bigger characters that they play and this is what makes them really funny and effective. The same goes with the equally humorous characters of Gary Beach and Roger Bart as Roger DeBris and Carmen Ghia. They are pitch perfect in their roles and their interaction was a nice little contrast to Lane and Broderick’s. Another standout is Will Ferrell as Franz Liebkind. He was a joy to watch as the nutcase German playwright. He even surprises with a more than passable singing voice that is just perfect for his role. The only miss in terms of casting is Uma Thurman. She is a lovely woman and, physically, a perfect choice for Ulla but she just could not compete with the wattage that the rest of the cast generates. She was not entirely bad but she really just fades into the background whenever Bialystock, Bloom, Liebkind or DeBris is on screen — which is practically every scene she is in.

Because of the number of transformations the original material went through (from movie script to musical to movie script again), the whole movie is very tight. All the scenes are wonderfully brief when it has to be and lengthy when it needs to be so. There is a wonderful efficiency in the way the movie is paced, which is a surprise since most other musicals suffer from having scenes that extend and drag the movie down. The jokes are all well placed and are knee-snappingly hilarious. I’m sure anyone who watches The Producers will have their own favorite funny scenes (I particularly love the play acting scene between Bialystock and one of his geriatric paramours).

The libretto for the musical (which was also written by Mel Brooks) is equally funny. Some of the lyrics are so witty and will make you laugh out loud. Along Came Bialy is one of those really funny songs that Lane really sings with gusto, and for me, it is one of the highlights of the film.

Brooks crams The Producers with every possible comedic gag in his arsenal — and he does it with intelligence and, yes, a little crassness. The obvious jabs at stereotypes may offend some but, really, it is just refreshing to throw political correctness sometimes and just have a little fun. Brooks does it with no apologies and the movie is all the better for it.

The Producers will definitely go down as one of the best movie musicals of all time.

Grade: A

The two Underworld movies were a big success when they came out even though its overall quality was quite suspect. Most men I know watched it many times just to see Kate Beckinsale in those body hugging shiny suits. In fact, it was Beckinsale that played a big part in making the Underworld films a hit.

Film companies really know when to milk something till its dry and one glaring example is the decision to release a third Underworld movie. The new installment will be a prequel and will be entitled Underworld 3: The Rise of the Lycans. This will serve as the directorial debut for creature effects expert Patrick Tatopoulus, who handled the effects for the first two Underworld installments. Len Wiseman, who directed the first two films, will now be the producer. Bill Nighy and Michael Sheen will reprise their roles as Viktor and Lucien while Rhona Mitra will play the role of Viktor’s daughter. Unfortunately, Ms. Beckinsale will not be involved in this film — I can almost hear the groans from men all over the world.

Now here’s a movie actually worth braving the horrors of the Art House Theater to go see. A Scanner Darkly is a very bizarre tale about drug-addiction which takes the audience about as close as they can get to a wacky acid-tripping experience without the threat of police brutality.

In this story, Keanu Reeves plays Bob Arctur, a normal guy who’s working undercover for the FBI in the future of 7 years from now. To mask their identities, he and his coworkers wear “scramble suits” which are constantly fluctuating between appearances of millions of different human beings, giving you no clear look at any one face. Bob lives in a house with 2 burn-outs, addicted to a drug called “Substance D”, which the FBI is desperate to destroy. It’s Bob’s job to monitor his roommates, interact with them (which even includes taking the drug, himself) and get the dirt on Substance D. However, to complicate matters, the FBI thinks that Bob Arctur is the head-honcho supplier of substance D but they don’t know that the guy they’ve hired to monitor Bob Arctur is in reality, Bob Arctur. But Bob Arctur isn’t the Bob Arctur they think he is but at the same time Bob Arctur, the real Bob Arctur, doesn’t really care about what kind of Bob Arctur the FBI thinks he is because all Bob Arctur cares about is getting wasted.

Those last few sentences probably parallel the coherency of this movie pretty accurately, as it does its best to extend the “drug-tripping” experience onto the viewer. The roto-scoping animation helps exponentially in that regard and gives the whole film a dizzying surreal effect. And I do mean dizzying. Everything is either constantly changing (the scramble suits are insane) or constantly moving, even stationary objects, which throws the viewer slightly off-balance for the whole movie. The film also throws in plenty of “WTF”-moments of the deeply creepy and insane variety, just to keep the audience scratching at their noggins. A Scanner Darkly fits perfectly in that “kinda scary drug-tripping movie” genre along with the likes of Videodrome, Naked Lunch and Jacob’s Ladder, though perhaps a bit more tame.

The movie has an excellently-assembled cast. Keanu Reeves is much easier to stomach in roto-scoped animated form, though honestly, who can play a sleepy burn-out junkie better than Keanu? Robert Downy Jr. plays one of the more entertaining characters, though you might get him confused with Jeff Goldblum for a minute, as he mimics the speech-pattern and mannerisms of the guy in question. Wynona Ryder plays her part well, though it could’ve been practically any actress in her place and it really wouldn’t have mattered. You’ve also got Woody Harrelson and Rory Cochrane as two other Substance D-addicted losers, who along with Robert Downy Jr., form the funniest aspect of the movie.

The humor in the film, much like everything else, is very bizarre and will get you laughing on a “What the Hell…”-level. The movie isn’t expressly a comedy, so don’t go in expecting a laugh-a-minute. But when the humor strikes it hits dead-on. A Scanner Darkly, as you can probably guess, is a tale of the dangers of drug-addiction and tries to invoke sympathy from the audience on behalf of junkies everywhere. The movie claims that it’s not always the junkie’s fault they’re hopelessly addicted, it depends largely on the circumstances, and that their addiction will be punishment-enough, in the end. I suppose that’s true, really, but I still don’t feel like giving that skin-head down the street five bucks every weekend so he can support his meth habit.

The movie is extremely “artsy”, so right there you know it won’t appeal to everybody. The plot is intentionally confusing and the animation might cause problems for those with motion-sickness. A Scanner Darkly is mainly going to appeal to people who liked movies such as Naked Lunch and Videodrome, which isn’t a bad thing in any way. I’d recommend it, though only to people interested in this sort of thing.

Grade: B-

Comment posted by jordan
at 3/28/2007 9:29:00 AM

This movie rules, nuf said. Robert downey jr’s character is awsome! so is charles freck!!!

Comment posted by Jason
at 7/18/2006 3:07:59 PM

… and is based on the book of the same name by Philip K. Dick (he seems to rarely get credit for the movies based on his works…)

The fellas over at Superhero Hype have gotten a sneak peek at the first 20 minutes of the brand new James Bond movie, ‘Casino Royale’. This new Bond film, based off the very first Ian Fleming novel and acting as a prequel to the whole franchise, shows a younger, less-experienced and much grittier James Bond than we’re used to. While Superhero Hype has the details, the news sounds promising. This looks to be the breath of fresh air the dull James Bond franchise has been needing since Goldeneye.

Comment posted by DrSpengler
at 7/7/2006 1:33:04 PM

There were two previous versions of Casino Royale, weren’t there? I think there was a black & white TV version which preceeded the Woody Allen/Orson Wells comedy flick (which I believe has officially been dubbed a “parody”).

I’ve never actually seen the TV version of Casino Royale. In fact, I think it’s the only Bond movie I’ve never seen…

-Spengs

Comment posted by Jacob Stewart
at 7/3/2006 12:09:52 AM

Am I the only one who remembers the first version of this film, with David Niven as Bond, and Woody Allen as the freeky evil villian. Clearly Mike Meyers saw it, before he wrote and produced Austin Powers, as some of the jokes are exactly the same.

I predict the new film will suck, unless they stay true to the comedic nature of the first (and best) Bond film ever, “Casino Royale”

Jacob (Aka Cosmo G Spacely, the Unabonger)

So the long-awaited Superman Returns has finally hit theaters. While the movie-itself managed to hit theaters, the outcome was both hit and miss. The story held up relatively nicely, save for some weak elements that felt too convenient or tacked-on. Most of the actors played their roles perfectly, save for the most important one. Overall, Superman Returns wasn’t as “super” as it was “somewhat above average”.

So Superman has been out in space for 5 years, looking for remains of his home-planet, Krypton. Finding nothing, he returns home to find the world has moved on without him. Lois has hooked-up with Perry White’s kid, Richard, and now has a 5 year old son (didn’t take her very long to get over Superman, did it?). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor has wormed his way out of prison and, after stealing some Kryptonian crystals from the Fortress of Solitude, now has the means to dominate the world. All because Superman was nowhere to be found. So Superman has to learn to adapt to the way things have become while reminding the world who he is and keeping humanity from destroying itself.

The story is well-conceived on most ends, though introducing Lois’ son really throws a kink into the works. It also makes the moments of romance between Superman and Lois feel very unwholesome, as she’s pretty much cheating on Richard (James Marsden), a nice guy who took care of her and there kid while Superman was out partying in space. It adds an element of drama, yes, but it also keeps the audience from totally liking Lois and Superman, as she comes off as a hussy and he comes off as a home-wrecker.

Brandon Routh, when all is said and done, just isn’t a very good Superman. An adequate Superman, yes, but a good Superman? No. What REALLY makes Superman in this movie is the use of nostalgia. John Williams’ larger-than-life Superman theme does a remarkable job of hiding Brandon Routh’s inadequacies in the role and brings Superman to life much better than the actual actor. Routh does a magnificent job channeling Christopher Reeves’ Clark Kent, on the other hand. It becomes almost creepy to a degree. A shame he couldn’t do the same with the alter ego.

Kevin Spacey steals the show as Lex Luthor and may very well be the best part of this movie. His take on the character is amazingly accurate to Gene Hackman’s rendition; it just feels so right. But unlike Hackman, Spacey brings an element of darkness to the character during key scenes. Sure, nothing close to the brooding, corporate executive Post-Crisis version most people are acquainted with today, but dark-enough to make Luthor more intimidating than campy.

Unfortunately, they chose to give Luthor a posse of incompetent side-kicks which will eventually eat-away at your nerves. While there’s nothing as annoying as Otis from the first two movies, Parker Posey plays a character absolutely identical to Ms. Tessmocker from the original films. I’ve never been a fan of Parker Posey, and this movie didn’t sway me in her direction. Luthor’s other minions aren’t so bad; some of them are even rather scary. But they aren’t given much screen-time compared to Posey (not even Kumar!) when they deserved so much more than her.

The rest of the cast fills out the roles nicely, even Kate Bosworth as Lois, though I still think she looks like a 17 year old girl. The direction is very intense, however, it can suffer from irritating “shaky cam” effects that annoy you more than mystify you. The effects scenes are a thing to behold, and when coupled with Williams’ theme, bring the character to life like never before.

Really, this movie had so much in its favor but faltered on several levels due to a number of bad decisions both in story and casting. I suppose Brandon Routh will have to be an “acquired taste”, as he’s certain to return for all the inevitable sequels. But as it stands, I just didn’t buy him. Still, the movie maintains that sense of wonderment you can only get from looking at the Man of Steel, and the scene in the ballpark where everybody cheers for him brought a smile to my face I just couldn’t hold back. So the movie wasn’t all bad.

Grade: C-

Comment posted by DavidCubed » Blog Archive » Superman Returns: A Superhero Fan Review
at 11/8/2006 7:29:04 PM

[…] DrSpengler over on Filmsy puts the actors performance into perspective, and since I can’t write it better myself, I will quote their review. Brandon Routh, when all is said and done, just isn’t a very good Superman. An adequate Superman, yes, but a good Superman? No. What REALLY makes Superman in this movie is the use of nostalgia. John Williams’ larger-than-life Superman theme does a remarkable job of hiding Brandon Routh’s inadequacies in the role and brings Superman to life much better than the actual actor. Routh does a magnificent job channeling Christopher Reeves’ Clark Kent, on the other hand. It becomes almost creepy to a degree. A shame he couldn’t do the same with the alter ego. […]

Comment posted by joe
at 9/6/2006 3:34:35 PM

Doesnt compare to the first movie, he isnt shown flyin as much as christopher reeves was in the first movie, if he was flyin he was either to close or to far to really enjoy the flyin scenes.As clark kent he wasnt as clumsy as expected. even his arms while flyin were to open wide, he didnt sell himself as superman but just an actor playin the role. regardless of my comment i still enjoyed the movie only because of the music and because im a die hard superman fan. And whats this with his son at the end, it bored out the movie at the end leavin it dry, i walked out with no excitement, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..

Comment posted by Dr. R.K.Z
at 7/14/2006 1:20:18 PM

Completly disagree with this review. Superman Returns was right up there with the first movie, which did almost the same thing with a little extra thrown in.

Comment posted by DrSpengler
at 7/10/2006 8:32:29 PM

I feel sorry for Marsden. He gets ripped-off in X3 and Lois and Supes spark it up behind his back in Superman Returns. The guy should get the award for Comic Book Movie’s Biggest Doormat.

Comment posted by jangelo
at 7/9/2006 5:06:51 PM

Problem with casting James Marsden as Lois Lane’s new love interest is that you’d half expect him to be firing lasers out of his eyes.

Comment posted by Phoenixrealm » Superman Returns: A Superhero Fan Review
at 7/6/2006 10:13:43 AM

[…] DrSpengler over on Filmsy puts the actors performance into perspective, and since I can’t write it better myself, I will quote their review. Brandon Routh, when all is said and done, just isn’t a very good Superman. An adequate Superman, yes, but a good Superman? No. What REALLY makes Superman in this movie is the use of nostalgia. John Williams’ larger-than-life Superman theme does a remarkable job of hiding Brandon Routh’s inadequacies in the role and brings Superman to life much better than the actual actor. Routh does a magnificent job channeling Christopher Reeves’ Clark Kent, on the other hand. It becomes almost creepy to a degree. A shame he couldn’t do the same with the alter ego. […]

Comment posted by bComicBooks - Comic Book movies, guides, news, prices » Blog Archive » Superman Returns: Review
at 6/29/2006 2:04:55 PM

[…] So Superman Returns is out and with it comes my review.  Overall, I thought it was above average but not quite everything I’d been anticipating.  You can read my full review Right Here. […]