A small amount for a lead actor in Hollywood terms generally, but when you consider that the previous Spider-man movies have all made around half a billion dollars each, it seems like a ridiculously low sum. Is this an outrage? Are Sony guilty of cynical greed? Or is it a fair figure for an unknown actor, in his first major movie production, who cannot offer any drawing power at the box office?

Clearly, there is a massive financial factor involved not just in this casting, but in the idea behind the reboot itself. Sam Raimi’s Spider-man series was hugely successful, but success can often come at a price. Whilst the first movie made $400m domestically, that amount decreased with each subsequent movie. Conversely, the money required to keep the franchise’s stars coming back was increasing each time. As the storylines had to become more elaborate to keep interest up, and outdo the last entry, production budgets will have inevitably increased too. Marketing costs probably also escalated. Sony were still making a profit, and a big one on the face of it. However, this profit was decreasing exponentially, and with Spiderman 4 on the horizon, and the expected payround discussions looming, you can begin to see why Sony decided to get out before the margin all but disappeared.

By starting from scratch, they can ensure a minimal production cost, with low salaries and a smaller scale production. They can also, and this is where the cynicism raises its head, trade off of the popularity and success of Raimi’s series to make a comparable gross profit to the preceding three films. A $400m gross looks infinitely better against production costs of $40m than it does against around $140m. Cynical, maybe, but is this too harsh a view to take of their actions?

The truth is, Maguire didn’t earn THAT much more for his first outing as the web slinging hero. Maguire wasn’t as well known as he is now, but was definitely more recognisable than Garfield to a mainstream audiences, having appeared in films such as Wonderboys and The Cider House Rules. If the studio had really wanted to be greedy, they would have cast a more well known, young actor for around the same amount, who they know would draw in fans based on their established celebrity. It may be that Sony’s decision is partly financially motivated, but if you look closer, you can see some promising signs.

Garfield hasn’t made many Hollywood movies before, having appeared in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus last year, and Fincher’s forthcoming The Social Network. He is an actor rather than a male model, however, and a respected one at that. By casting a young British actor with credits in TV and theatre, they are attempting to get someone who can well handle the drama and emotional turmoil that is inherent in the Peter Parker character, rather than just a pretty face that will look good on the poster.

They have already shown by their choice of director that they are looking to craft a serious, warm and engaging story. Marc Webb has only made one movie so far, but last year’s 500 Days of Summer was very well received, and was one of the best romantic dramas of recent years. He showed a sure hand, with some great unique ideas.

It is a bit of a gamble maybe, to take on such an inexperienced feature director, and his lack of credits will certainly mean that he was a cheaper option than someone who is more established. The important thing for me, though, is that Webb’s appointment holds the promise of something special. I am an advocate of bold rather than safe, solid choices when it comes to filmmakers, and if it pays off we could, potentially, have the most well rounded comic book adaptation, with a thrilling action movie anchored by compelling personal drama. The only potential sticking point with me is the choice of writer. James Venderbilt was responsible for Fincher’s decent Zodiac, but also wrote the brainless Welcome to the Jungle and The Losers.

I was originally against the idea of the Spider-man reboot, because i thought it was being done purely for the wrong reasons. The more i think about it, though, the more excited i am by the chance that we could get something unique, something great, rather than the overblown Spider-man 4 we could well have had, if Raimi had continued to direct, and the studio had continued to interfere due to their financial concerns. We will see with the choices of actors for the rest of the characters whether acting ability remains a central casting decision. If it does, then i think Sony should be given a pass. As always, we’ll keep you updated with the news as we get it.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The Concert is one of the best films I’ve seen this year, it’s moving, funny, original, completely satisfying and definitely a surprise hit this year and I hope more people will get to see it amongst the summer blockbusters that mostly disappoint during this seasons of films. So if you care to see another film other than Inception and Toy Story 3 then you should really go check out Radu Mihaileanu’s excellent movie.

The Concert is the story about Andrei Filipov (Aleksei Guskov) a once revered Russian orchestra conductor whose career was destroyed during a performance of Tchaikovsky’s The Violin Concerto when he was sacked and humiliated mid performance for hiring Jews. 30 years later and Andrei now works as a janitor in the Bolshoi desperate to relive his former glory and he gets his chance when he devises a crazy scheme to impersonate the Bolshoi Theatre Orchestra, with his former colleagues, when he’s cleaning one night he intercepts a fax invite from Paris to perform at the Chatelet Theater. And so like the Blues Brothers he attempts to get the band back together to finish the concert they were destined to play.

Andrei’s plan also includes convincing an acclaimed French violinist Anne-Marie Jacquet (the wonderful Melanie Laurent from Inglourious Basterds) to play with his impostor orchestra for mysterious motives other than needing a very talented lead to play the key parts to Tchaikovsky’s Violin Concerto and as the film develops we get to understand the real connection between Anne-Marie Jacquet and Andrei’s Orchestra 30 years before.

The Concert is a highly enjoyable, fun, comedy drama with humour that swings between touching commentary, cheeky satire and wackiness that although doesn’t try to cut too savagely into it’s communist history it does enjoy poking fun at the KGB especially in the character of Ivan Gavrilov (Valeri Barinov) who desperately clings onto a highly romanticized view of what life was like under communist rule who in-turn offers the newly reformed orchestra its only chance of getting out of Russia to Paris for the concert.

The Concert has a wonderful pacing and although it slows down a bit in the middle after the raucous troop descend onto Paris descending into a drunken crowd who vanish into the Paris city with no intention of performing at the Concert leaving Andrie in the lurch, the film does picks up considerably when Anne-Marie becomes more involved into the story and although she has a small amount of screen time her presence is clearly noticeable and memorable as her past comes to link with Andrei’s desperate mission of completing the Concert and achieving the ultimate harmony for over 30 years, as long as he can find his missing orchestra.

Radu Mihaileanu directs wonderfully and the entire cast offer something truly brilliant, not all the jokes work but there is more than enough to keep you amused throughout and even more touching storylines to give your heart a tug. The music is hugely enjoyable and to read that Melanie Laurent had to learn how to play violin from scratch was remarkable as she looked completely at ease with the movement and characteristics of playing the instrument that suited her role and did not look out of place. The Concert is full of likable characters and some excellent musicians who offer something uniquely musical and funny in equal doses that help make the film so watchable, you can’t help but smile when they start playing together.

Now the moment that makes the Concert so incredibly memorable and pure cinematic satisfaction. The combination of perfect poignant acting and the most spine tingling engaging music of Tchaikovsky mixed with some heart-rending flashbacks that explain the past and some heart warming flash-forwards showing the future of the group whilst the Concert reaches its crescendo that perfectly concludes every aspect of the film in the most satisfying and touching way I could possibly imagine and probably provides one of the greatest movie endings I can remember of recent years and one that for me propels the film into greatness, Encore indeed.

The Concert is out on the 16th July, I cannot recommend it enough.

23 years ago, a formulaic Arnold Schwarzenegger action vehicle was released. It enjoyed box office, if not necessarily critical success. A lacklustre follow-up ensured the franchise was, cinematically at least, silenced for many years. The series’ protagonists were given their big screen resurrection 6 years ago with shared billing, with a sequel 3 years later. Both films were very poorly received. How, then, has such a mishandled franchise not only endured up to this point in the public psyche, but led to this week’s big budget sequel, directed by Nimrod Antal, and starring Academy Award winner Adrien Brody?

It was the Eighties, and Arnold Schwarzenegger had become the Hollywood action hero of choice, thanks to his impressive physique, and a string of formulaic hits such as Commando and Raw Deal, and the ground breaking Terminator. Jim and John Thomas’ screenplay for Predator was, as the story goes, the result of a joke that Sylvester Stallone would have to fight an alien in the next Rocky installment, having been victorious over a series of increasingly invincible opponents over the course of Rocky’s I through V.

The first Predator film played out very much like a cross between Rambo and Alien (indeed, the recently mooted Rambo concept of Rambo and company facing off against an alien monster may have been both an offshoot of this original idea, and shut down because of its similarities). A team of soldiers, deep in the Guatemalan jungle on a rescue mission, find themselves picked off one by one by an invisible, otherworldly assailant. Eventually, Schwarzenegger’s Dutch is the only character left, resulting in a Mano a Mano showdown which inevitably ends in the Governator’s victory.

As i mentioned at the beginning, it was a very formulaic, recognisable plot. There was one big factor, however, that helped it stand out. It wasn’t the fact that the cast included two future State Governors (Jesse Ventura and Arnie himself) and excellent Lethal Weapon screenwriter Shane Black (who was apparently chosen in part so he could keep an eye on rookie director John McTiernan). What made Predator better than Schwarzenegger’s usual shtick was the presence of a truly compelling foe. Where mostly he was known for taking apart faceless goons one by one until he met up with the B-movie villain of the piece, here the situation was more or less reversed. If it hadn’t been for the presence of the Austrian actor, the Predator himself would have been the star of the movie. The alien warrior was new and unique. Whilst the creature in Alien and its sequels was driven seemingly by pure animalistic instinct, the Predator had evolved technology, such as the thermal imaging capabilities, and a clear hide and strike, hunter’s mentality. In many ways this made the enemy the more compelling character.

With a $60m gross, and good critical reception, Predator was potentially a fantastic starting point for an interesting series of movies. Unfortunately, Predator 2 was not the right follow up. The series lost star Schwarzenegger to Terminator 2: Judgement Day, replacing him with a Danny Glover who was visibly too old too old for this s^&$. It also lost director McTiernan, who had directed Die Hard in the interim and turned down Predator 2 for The Hunt For Red October.

This time around, the Predator becomes mixed up in an inner city gang war, and is hunted by both a city cop and a task-force tasked with hunting down the otherworldly being. We learn a bit more about the creature, seeing more of his ship, and see several of his kind at the conclusion. Relocating the action to an inner city environment wasn’t necessarily a bad decision, but a combination of poor story, low star power, and unfulfilled potential left Predator 2 as a financial and critical failure, effectively killing the franchise as we knew it.

Well, not exactly. Whilst the botched production of Predator 2 left no money, and therefore no viability for a continuation of the movie series, the Predator character had taken on a cult status, and led to the Alien versus Predator comic and video game series. Predator had clear similarities to the Alien series, and the combination of the two creatures was an obvious, and compelling mix. The differences between their styles, the seemingly mindless, feral nature of the Aliens versus the almost human-like tribal, hunter-gatherer instincts of the Predators meant that two completely different cultures could be explored. With no clear hero and villain, and a seemingly level playing field, fans were free to choose their favourites.

The standalone Alien movie series also continued to be healthy, which meant that this inextricable link between the two beings greatly helped the Predator to stay in the public consciousness. By that token, the Predators stood to gain far more from the relationship, almost riding on Alien’s coat-tails. It was this rivalry, and the cult popularity of the Alien Versus Predator brand that led to Predator’s big screen resurrection, in the first Alien Vs Predators movie.

However, despite the continued success and interest for the Alien movie franchise, AVP was made with a considerably lower budget than was really required to do the concept justice. Though the movie tried to remain faithful to both creatures mythology, with director Paul WS Anderson shoehorning in as many references to their previous outings as he could muster, the storyline was generally pretty weak. It did have interesting ideas about how they existed together in their shared universe. The idea that young Predator’s were sent out to kill their first Alien as a right of passage was a great jumping off point, but the movie as a whole was very poorly written, acted, and produced. Cheap costumes meant that action sequences were reduced to fast cut, dark shadow combat, rendering these battles unwatchable. Though audiences had turned out to see the two great foes do battle, most of the movie followed the human contingent of the story, and movie goers felt seriously short changed.

AVP: Requiem was arguably even worse, coming across as a straight to DVD quality production, with 24′s Michelle Dessler (actress Reiko Aylesworth) as its biggest ‘star’. No money, no ideas, no chance. It was only the AVP brand’s cult status that drew any audience in at all. Alien Vs Predator; Requiem can only be considered a total failure, and really should have killed off both franchises. However, the continued popularity of the two is a clear argument that truly compelling protagonists can survive inept filmmaking.

Whilst AVP was dragging the two combatants names through the mud, a plan was afoot to revive the Predators in their own new standalone movie. Robert Rodriguez had originally been drafted to craft a script for a Predator movie shortly after the first film’s release, and when it was decided to revive the franchise, he was the obvious choice. Dusting off his old screenplay, the director set about rewriting it for a new sequel. The Sin City helmer’s Predators script almost completely disregards the Predator 2 follow up, and both AVP films, and works as more of a Predators to Predator as Aliens was to Alien.

Relocating the action to the Predator home planet, Predators reverts back to the original jungle setting , but where the original movie had humans battling the hunter on their own turf, here the humans find themselves out of their depth as they clash with different Predator tribes, in their own environment. The casting of The Pianist’s Adrien Brody was a surprising move, sort of a halfway house between Predator’s Schwarzenegger and Predator 2′s Glover. As far as acting ability goes, however, it is one giant leap.

This is a promising move, and suggests a much less formulaic storyline may lie in store. He is backed up by the brilliant Danny Trejo, a Robert Rodriguez favourite (having starred in From Dusk Til Dawn, Desperado etc…) along with Laurence Fishburne (The Matrix trilogy), Alice Braga (I Am Legend), Topher Grave (Spiderman 3), and Walton Goggins (TV’s Justified). The relocation to the Predator home planet suggests we may well learn more about their culture, history, and the source of their technological advancement. Predators has the potential to provide a really interesting plot, and allow for a far more compelling series that truly explores the full potential of the franchise. Director Nimrod Antal is also a potentially great choice. His first picture, Hungarian film Control, gained great critical success. He has yet to replicate that success in Hollywood, however, with previous work including 2007′s Vacancy, and the so-so Armoured from last year.

Despite the prequel projects that are underway for the Alien series, whilst the Alien movies best is probably behind them, the Predator’s series has yet to reach its heights. The far more sentient nature of the protagonists, and therefore the increased potential for Predator/Human interaction means that the possibilities for future Predator films are almost endless, withmany different directions that can be explored. Hopefully Predators will perform well both critically and financially, and allow for a new set of movies that live up to the expectations of the fans, and lead to far greater stories than we have previously seen cinematically for the intergalactic hunters.

Predators was released yesterday, Thursday 8th July in the UK, and today, Friday 9th July in the US. You can read our review here.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The Last Airbender currently stands at 9% on Rotten Tomatoes, with just 9 positive reviews. For those not keeping count, that’s bad. As we know, however, review scores are only half the story. If the movie makes a big enough profit, M. Night could rise phoenix like from the ashes of his recent career. So what are its box office chances?

With a reported $150m production budget, there is sure to be a pretty weighty marketing package behind the film, which may be almost as much again. As we all know, if you get enough promotional power behind a film, people are gonna go see it. But in this instance, is that going to be enough? Looking at the other elements, i think the answer is going to be a resounding no.

The first alarm bell is the complete lack of star power. The director himself has seen his star falling for several years, so little help there. And whilst there are some recognisable names and faces within the movie, from a mainstream point of view, i don’t see any actors that are going to draw people in. Dev Patel did star in the Academy Award winning Slumdog Millionaire, but one big movie doesn’t necessarily make a star.

Brand recognition is usually a selling point with movies based on an existing property, but that isn’t necessarily going to be that effective here either. Adapted from a Nickelodeon kid’s animated series, it did get big ratings for a cartoon, but only ran for three seasons. Being mainly a kid’s show, it has limited appeal to non-geeky adults, so i can’t imagine the average movie goer will know much about it. Avatar does have a dedicated cult following, but there is a big difference between cult and mass appeal. This will be made even worse by the fact that it isn’t actually named after the original cartoon, thanks to Mr Cameron’s co-opting of the Avatar name several years ago for a little project he released last year.

It’s impossible to foresee really, but it is highly possible that The Last Airbender will fail to recoup its budget, and it is currently estimated that it will have an opening weekend of around $50m. The review scores certainly aren’t hopeful – to put it in perspective, Jonah Hex opened with around $5m in its first weekend, and had a higher aggregate score on Rotten Tomatoes.

So what does this mean for Shyamalan? Was this his last chance to get the audience back onside? There is a lot of apathy, and even hatred around for the director now, but i think some of it is a little harsh. I’m not a big fan myself, but i did like The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable, as did a lot of people. Both of these films are present in the IMDb250, and were huge when they were originally released. His output since has steadily deteriorated, but when i hear people blast his work, and include his earliest two films, it gets to me. A lot of those same people praised these movies when they were originally released, and it is almost like they are trying to rewrite Shyamalan’s history. There is a reason that he was given a huge amount of money to make The Last Airbender, and that is because he HAS shown great talent in the past.

The Last Airbender was a risk, for both director and studio. It is set to fail by the looks of it, but i don’t necessarily think either made the wrong decision. Shyamalan is a filmmaker, that is his job, to make films. We were all complaining that he was making the same type of movie over and over, and that we were sick of his ‘formula’. So he took on something completely different, something ambitious, and i think he should be praised for trying. He is being lambasted now, but if he had gone and made another movie in the style of his others, he would have gotten a similar reaction. It was almost a no-win situation for him. Yes, if he had done a good job of The Last Airbender, then he would have won, and we would all have congratulated him, so for that, he is culpable. I just don’t think he should be criticised for taking the project on, just for its failure.

I think, however, we should also praise Paramount for taking the risk. Shyamalan was struggling, but had created a reputation for crafting some good drama, with interesting stories. The studio had a property that they could have easily handed over to a Michael Bay or Stephen Sommers, and sat back as the overblown popcorn action movie brought the dollars rolling in. They tried to do something a bit different. They gambled money on a man who at least had the potential to produce something unique, something special. That this decision ultimately ended in failure is unfortunate, but that doesn’t necessarily make it a wrong one. Without decisions like this we wouldn’t get films like Where The Wild Things Are, or Green Zone. It is a miracle either of these movies ever got commissioned, and whilst neither was a resounding commercial or critical success, both hold a lot of meaning for those that do love them. No company can afford to make losses on all their movies, but with the huge amounts of profit that are gained in the industry, i think it is important to make a gamble now and then on an interesting idea, and a talented filmmaker, that could quite conceivably produce something great.

I’m not suggesting that we should all go out and watch The Last Airbender. If it is as bad as everyone is saying, we should treat it with the contempt that it deserves. Neither am i saying that Shyamalan should be given another $150m to make a movie. He has had his chance, and much like Richard Kelly after his flops Southland Tales and The Box, his best option is to go away and quietly try to construct something brilliant, and hopefully surprise us in a couple of years time. In order to do this, he needs a bit of slack. If The Last Airbender does fail financially, and if he retreats humbly, give him the space. Of course, if it makes Transformers 2 type profits, we should all be very, very scared…

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

These are not the first casting rumours regarding Batman 3 of course. Soon after the release of The Dark Knight, its huge financial success meant that ‘news’ stories regarding the next installment were everywhere. Just weeks after it opened, there were rumours that Batman’s producers had singled out Johnny Depp and Philip Seymour Hoffman as the stars they wanted for the third movie, as villains The Riddler and The Penguin respectively. Considering how paramount great casting has been to the quality of Nolan’s work, it’s impossible to imagine him ever again letting a studio dictate his casting, particularly for main roles. It was shortly after this that Angelina Jolie was being named for Catwoman. This before director or studio had even acknowledged the potential of a third film being developed.

The rumours have continued since, with a parade of characters being named, with The Riddler seemingly being the most popular. Actors have been mooted with just as much regularity, again a favourite has emerged, with Johnny Depp being the one most frequently referred to. There are numerous reasons why this is all so ridiculous.

As far as we know, the screenplay for ‘Untitled Batman Project’ hasn’t been completed, and without a clear storyline in place, even Nolan and Warner Bros don’t know who they are looking for. David S Goyer has been working on the story, and is writing the screenplay with Jonathan Nolan, but with Christopher Nolan tied up for the last several months with work on Inception, it seems highly unlikely that there has been any talks based around casting. It is quite possible that even character decisions are yet to be finalised. The only ‘guarantees’ are that Christian Bale, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman will  be back. Certainly, without scripting and storyboards, a clear shooting schedule is unlikely to have been established, which again makes casting difficult due to potential scheduling conflicts.

Perhaps more importantly than this, is the fact that Nolan is habitually very secretive with his filmmaking. Both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight were made under false working titles, The Intimidation Game and Rory’s First Kiss respectively. With his most recent film, Inception, the storyline has been kept almost completely under wraps until very recently, and is only now coming to light because it would be impossible to promote the movie without revealing some plot details. Based on the sheer number of rumours and stories that have been thrown around, the director would have had to have undergone a complete personality transplant for even a small percentage of them to contain any truth. The talented filmmaker will take the selection process very seriously, and would not want any details leaked until he was sure of his decisions first.

With Nolan now doing the rounds on the Inception promotional trail, it’s natural for questions to be asked of him regarding Batman. Any answers he gives are going to be open to interpretation, so there are obviously going to be numerous stories doing the rounds again. But Inception is the reason i think the stories need to be put on hold. By fixating on a movie not due for release for a couple of years, we are very much undermining Nolan’s latest film. Inception is just a month away. It is a highly anticipated film, one of the biggest releases of the year, with some fantastic actors, and right now it deserves all our attention.

Asking Nolan questions about a future project when he is trying to sell his latest vision to the public is actually pretty unfair. He wrote it himself, and based on the appearance of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character in the promotional pictures and trailer, it looks to be a very personal piece of work. Unlike Batman, it is a completely original concept. In a time when franchises, reboots and sequels are taking over our multiplexes, we should be falling over ourselves for the chance to promote this kind of movie. Nolan has never made a bad film, and his original stories and ideas have made him one of the most popular filmmakers of his generation.

The interest in Batman is inevitable, and once Inception has been released, i have no problem with looking ahead to the next, and probably last, installment in Nolan’s series. But for now, ignore the easy hits, let Batman 3 marinate, and anticipate the potential beauty, and brilliance, of Christopher Nolan’s Inception.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Paramount’s official line was that Fox’s option for the third film simply hadn’t been picked up, that director Michael Bay wanted to look at a different choice for the love interest for Sam Whitwicky, as played by Shia LaBeouf. A spokesperson for Fox then came out and said Fox had walked due to ‘abusive and offensive behaviour’ aimed towards her by director Bay. I’m not really in a position to sort the wheat from the chafe as regards the true story, but my job does involve a little speculation.

Bay’s supposed attitude would be reason enough for either these options. He clearly used Fox as the ‘hot girl’ to draw in the teenage boy audience. Therefore, she would be seen as interchangeable with any other gorgeous female star. This was evidenced by the possible replacements that were immediately named. The first name mentioned was Gemma Arterton, who can be considered a natural beauty, and she has shown some talent for acting. After that, however, a parade of ‘actresses’ names were thrown around, many models with no previous experience. Then last week it was finally officially revealed that Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, a Victoria’s Secret model no less, had been given the role. This backs both arguments.

Firstly, it is clear that Bay’s first priority is looks over talent, which certainly supports the idea that he felt Fox was easily replaceable. It also speaks for his attitude towards female actresses in general. If he is happy to pick a model with no history of acting, then Fox’s claims of misogynistic treatment can also be believed. If he had so little regard for her abilities as an actress that she could be replaced by a catwalk model, it isn’t a stretch to believe he tried to push her around.

Thinking outside the box, i originally thought that it could be that neither of these explanations were true. A string of respected actors have been added to the cast of Transformers 3, including the likes of John Malkovich and Frances McDormand. I was considering the possibility that Michael Bay had had an epiphany, and decided that he wanted to fill his next movie with outstanding actors, resulting in the culling of one of the weaker performers from the franchise. This looked to be proven completely off the mark immediately, however, considering the list of names we heard linked to the part. If Bay had really been interested in great casting, someone like Carey Mulligan, or an equally talented young actress would have won the role.

Regardless of the reasons behind Fox’s departure, it leaves a bit of a gap in her schedule, and nothing has rushed to fill it so far. Jonah Hex is released this month, and all indications are that it is a disaster. Fox’s next movie to be released after that, Passion Play, stars Mickey Rourke and Bill Murray, and then there is a bit of a question mark. In an interview with MTV last week, Fox spoke a little bit about the Fathom adaptation she has been linked with, and though she didn’t say much, she intimated it might well go ahead without her presence. Aside from modelling for some Armani ads, it looks like Megan Fox may be fading from the spotlight.

Whatever the real story behind Fox’s departure, the big question is, does it make any difference to Transformers 3′s quality, or chances of box office success? I rather glibly pointed out in an article the other week that Megan Fox has shown no bankability in her career to date, with her only big film since joining the Transformers set-up, Jennifer’s Body, showing no real chops at the box office. I do stand by my statement, but at the same time, i think those that say the Transformers franchise made her career are being a little unfair. Fox was a huge selling point for both movies, they were sold to a large extent on her sex appeal, and i do think that she had some influence on Transformers’ huge gross, particularly the second film.

Having said that, i’m not sure that her absence will have a noticeable effect on the third movie’s numbers.She has a distinctive look and personality, and there is a generation of teenage boys that have fallen in love with her. But the boys that were teenagers when the first film was released have now reached an age where they are able to be a bit more discerning with respect to acting ability, and whilst that doesn’t necessarily bode well for their interest in her replacement, there is now a new batch of horny teenage boys ready to be entranced by whoever does end up filling her boots. I’m not a fan of Fox, and having paid full price to see the atrocity that was Transformers 2, at the Imax no less, i have very little interest in the next installment. Part of me however would like to think that there are fans of Fox, and her character, that will not go to see the next film because of her absence. It’ll be impossible to really measure this, though, as i can’t help but think the poor quality of Revenge of the Fallen will itself have an adverse impact on the success of the third film.

I think ultimately, filmmaking is both the winner and loser here. Megan Fox has yet to show a great talent in any of the parts she has played so far, so from an acting standpoint it doesn’t look to be any great loss. Hopefully, as a result of this she will get the opportunity to prove me wrong my taking on a much better part in a much better movie. A third stint as Mikaela Banes was never going to do her credibility as a serious actress any favours, and being cut free of the franchise, whatever the reason, may allow her to show that she can do a whole lot better.

Whoever had been chosen to replace her was not going to bring the Transformers series down any lower in stature, and with the greatest will in the world, even someone with the great acting ability of a Kate Winslet would be hard pressed to elevate Michael Bay’s movies to any great emotional or intellectual level. The Transformers films are popcorn, action heavy effects movies at best, and to expect any more than that is to hold yourself up to nothing but disappointment. To be honest, that casting rumours for Transformers 3 are the biggest news story of any week is a sad affair indeed, and here i am adding fuel to the fire. Ho hum.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Both are reboots of much loved 80′s properties, and are surely just attempts to milk some more money out of our collective nostalgia. So why has one cash-in so outperformed the other? Here’s five potential reasons.

1. Trailers

It all began with the trailers. Whilst the promos for Joe Carnahan’s action film oozed cheese, bad dialogue and over the top set pieces, the trailers for The Karate Kid evoked more of the spirit of its source material. It threw in some reflections of the original film, whilst updating them for a more contemporary audience. It seemed to understand the charm of the original film, and translated it perfectly to the present day. The A-Team however threw in some lazy one liners evocative of the eighties series, without showing them in any relatable context, and almost seemed to be mocking the much loved TV series. The A-Team stank of cynical money-grabbing, whilst The Karate Kid looked to be a genuine attempt to bring a classic story to a 21st century audience.

2. Buzz

Because of the differing success of the trailers, The A-Team was written off pretty early as a trashy, poorly conceived action film, whilst the enthusiasm for The Karate Kid was greatly increased. Then along came the review scores. Currently, The Karate Kid holds a 69% fresh score on Rotten Tomatoes. Conversely, Carnahan’s picture trails with 52% rotten. Whilst on a broad level i don’t think review scores mean all that much anymore (particularly considering the relatively small percentage of the theatre audience that internet movie sites actually hit), if you are given a choice between two movies aimed at similar demographics, that 20% review score differential is going to obviously curry favour for the picture with the greater numbers.

4. Story

We all loved The A-Team. It was pure eighties. There were bullets flying, but no-one got shot. BA had superhuman strength, taking on several goons at a time. Murdoch was Howlin’ Mad, and we all watched with anticipation as sparks flew from the heroes’ welding tools, as they put together another hastily constructed tank. We enjoyed watching it, but even then, deep down, we knew it was rubbish. The same basic story every week, with a very similar setting, it was The Seven Samurai on a pitiful budget. The Karate Kid, on the other hand, had a really very touching story at its heart. The young son of a single mother, moving to a new school, being bullied by the local teenagers, was heartbreaking. The friendship struck up between Daniel Larusso and Mr Miyagi was compelling, helped greatly by the overwhelming likability of the quiet, noble Miyagi as played by Pat Morita. The underdog story wasn’t original thematically, but was presented in a compelling and fresh way, through a young boy overcoming the odds using martial arts. The Karate aspect was very much of its time, when a generation of young western boys became fascinated with the hand to hand combat styles of the Far East.

3. Demographic

There are many reasons why The Karate Kid proved more compelling to the movie-going audience than The A-Team. One of the biggest is its broader appeal, particularly to a family audience. Starring a young teenager, with a wholesome story at heart, and no guns in sight, it is a much more suitable option for a family trip to the cinema. With a love story contained within, it also is probably more of a date movie than The A-Team. The A-Team is pitched to a very specific demographic. An over the top, boys own action television series, it appealed to 18-30′s males, but not really to women in the slightest. With no fond memories of watching the TV series as young girls, there is not much really to draw them in.

5. Big Willie Style

Will Smith is the box office man who can. Despite his prolonged absence from the big screen, his influence obviously still holds sway, even rubbing off on his family. If the Karate Kid of the title had been played by an unknown, i don’t think there would have been as much talk surrounding the movie, particularly early on. There was a lot of criticism for the casting of Jaden Smith, with people decrying the fact that ‘Will Smith’s kid’ had won the role through nepotism. Whether this is the case or not, i’m not sure. But it is clear that people were interested to see what kind of job he could do, and no doubt there were many who went into the movie hoping he would fail. The presence of Jackie Chan obviously helped too. It took a long time for Chan to gain cinematic credibility in North America. After big successes with Rush Hour and Shanghai Noon, he had finally won audiences over. His recent movies have begun to damage that, so his suitable casting here has come at a great time. The cast of the A-Team have had success. Last year, The Hangover and District 9 were two of the surprise hits of the summer, bringing relative unknowns Bradley Cooper and Sharlto Copley to the fore. One big role does not however make a bankable star. Liam Neeson is well respected, but despite winning his action credentials with 2008′s Taken, he has never really been a box office draw. The stars of the A-team movie are reasonably well known, but the interest and curiosity factor really just aren’t there.

Movies based on television series don’t traditionally do all that well, and TV shows that are suitable for adaptation tend to have more of a cult following than a big mainstream fanbase. Remakes of movies tend to have an advantage, because they already have a reputation AS movies, and in the case of The Karate Kid, the reputation of a good one. When you remake a successful movie, you know it’ll probably work, because it already has. TV shows are written into a smaller block of time, around 42 minutes, and when attempts are made to make a feature length version, the concept doesn’t tend to stretch far enough for 2 hours. There are exceptions of course, with Mission: Impossible being the one that immediately springs to mind.

It’ll be interesting to see if The A-Team closes the gap next weekend, by suffering a smaller drop off at the box office. Considering the huge deficit, there isn’t a chance for it to catch up with The Karate Kid’s total at the end of their respective runs. It may be, though, that The A-Team enjoys a second life on DVD, with those that didn’t see it in theatres checking it out. I don’t think we’ll see an A-Team sequel, but there is already talk of another Karate Kid film. That may very well become a victim of diminishing returns, but its success relative to its budget makes it worth a punt, and with the success it has enjoyed, we certainly haven’t seen the back of the 80′s cinema revival.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

It is bad because Del Toro was such a perfect fit for the job. He has shown both a talent for great storytelling, and working with unreal and mystical creatures. Make no mistake, working with otherworldly beings in film is not easy, it takes a keen eye and a particular mindset, and Del Toro has shown all these abilities.

The reasons behind Del Toro’s decision are perfectly understandable, and i don’t think anyone should be angry at him. There is currently a lot of turmoil at MGM, with financial issues, no buyer in sight and the cancellation of the proposed Bond 23. The Hobbit has already been in development for a couple of years, and the proposed shoot in New Zealand has increased in duration. Del Toro is in demand, and has personal projects he wishes to pursue, making a six year commitment to two movies impractical, particularly with the potential threat of being shut down for monetary reasons. What this all means is that now, the search is on for his successor.

It’s a tough position to fill. Del Toro has done a lot of prep work, and with the development looking to be long over estimates already, the producers won’t be keen to see Del Toro’s output thrown out. They can’t afford for anyone to start from scratch, and they need someone who is willing to take on Del Toro’s ideas to complement their own, without ending up with a total hack. As well as the inevitable calls for Peter Jackson to step up, there have been several names thrown around as the obvious contenders, and all are perfectly reasonable.

Alfonso Cuaron is a friend of Del Toro, and a great filmmaker. He has previous experience with literary adaptation, have been responsible for the best of the Harry Potter movies. Combined with the fantastic Children of Men, another film based on a novel, Cuaron has displayed a great feel for world building. Also, as a cinematographer at heart, he would be more than capable of making the world of Middle Earth look fantastic, with a distinctive style of camera work. He is currently working on Gravity

Another name in the frame is Ridley Scott. Scott’s Gladiator is a great representation of why he would be a good choice. An epic, with battle scenes, a layered storyline and great personal drama, having already worked with swords and skirts is a strong qualifier. In fact, if Robin Hood hadn’t turned out so badly, he might have even been the front-runner. Scott’s slate currently includes an Alien prequel project.

One man who immediately springs to mind, having worked with fantastical characters and unique worlds his whole career, is Terry Gilliam. His ability to construct a compelling world is second to none, and he would certainly give a uniquely dark flavour to JR Tolkien’s work. Gilliam however is currently busy with his Don Quixote project, which isn’t a short prospect. More than this, my concern would be his track record. Don’t get me wrong, his movies are fantastic. But imagine what mishaps could befall the man on a shoot of such a long duration!

A name came to my mind quite quickly when i heard of Del Toro’s departure, but i haven’t so far seen his name mentioned in connection with the job. Quite why, i’m not sure, but i feel that Kenneth Branagh may be the obvious solution that so far everyone has missed.

Branagh is best known for literary adaptations. He has made several movies based on the work of another great author, that being one William Shakespeare. These movies have also covered the same ground as The Hobbit. Big battles, personal conflicts, set in a historical period. I guess technically Middle Earth isn’t part of real history, but you get my point.

Branagh hasn’t really done a whole lot as a filmmaker in recent years, and his appointment as director of Marvel’s Thor was certainly a surprise. It was definitely an interesting choice though, and indicates that maybe he is looking to get back into the directors chair on a full time basis. If he IS looking to rebuild his directorial career, a six year stint on a shoot overseas is definitely a good way to expand your skill set.

But is he up to the job? He has certainly shown in the past that he is a very capable filmmaker, and obviously his time on Thor will have brought him back up to speed with the most modern techniques and technology, and given him a taste of CGI, which presumably he has had no use for in the past. The Hobbit is a big shoot, with a lot of money at stake. But with Peter Jackson and the rest of the experienced LOTR crew behind the scenes, he’ll definitely have a lot of great support.

I think one of the biggest advantages would be his desire to succeed. After so much time away from the job, Branagh would be keen to do well. He is a solid director, and i believe he would be able to use the material Del Toro has left behind, and use it in conjunction with his own ideas and style. He is also British, which shouldn’t really matter, but many of those speculating about who could take over the job seem keen to have someone from these shores take the reigns, to ‘bring Tolkien’s vision home’.

Possibly the biggest stumbling block is his work on Thor. Shooting is currently in progress, and the film will keep Brannagh busy for several months to come. No director worth his salt will be available immediately however, and if Jackson and the studio execs want the movies to succeed, they will have to be patient enough to wait for the right man (or woman).

I think Branagh could very well be that man, and i’d like to see him given the chance. With no recent work to recommend him on though, it might be a tough sell. A decision will need to be made far in advance of Thor’s release. And it is of course entirely possible that Thor won’t be very good, in which case he certainly would not be the right man for the job. And i’ll end up looking very stupid. I’m looking forward to seeing who IS chosen for the job, and i hope they get it right. There are a lot of Middle Earth fans out there, and it would be a real shame if they didn’t get the movie the source material deserves, or worse, if the project collapses altogether.

What do you think? Who do you think is the right man for the job? Head over to the related thread on our forum here, and join the debate.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Spring Heeled Jack

 The Lore

 According to various folklore sources (or as i like to call them, Wikipedia), Spring Heeled Jack existed in Victorian London, and was so called because of his unique ability to jump very high. There are many descriptions of his appearance, the generally accepted one was of a tall, slim built man, dressed in black. Sometimes said to have claws, he was apparently a terrifying figure to behold. Jack’s MO differs in numerous accounts. Some involve simple feats of leaping, in some he attacked and groped women, and in other stories he was said to jump up and slap people in the face, quickly disappearing into the night.

 The Pitch

 Due to its macabre content, and Victorian setting, this project is perfect for the gothic king Tim Burton. His dark, creepy take on the streets of Olde London Town would set the perfect tone for this tale. Spring Heeled Jack himself, a dark, mysterious figure with obvious psychological issues, is the perfect role for Crispin Glover. What’s that? Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter? Oh, go on then. Bonham Carter plays a victim that Jack has taken a particular interest in, and he begins to revisit her, developing an obsession. Johnny Depp is the newspaper man on the trail of the shadowy figure, desperate to uncover his identity in order to further his journalistic career. The trail leads him to Carter’s doorstep, and he finds he must try to protect her whilst discovering the deep, dark secret at the heart of Spring Heeled Jack’s actions.

Brute of Troy

 The Lore

 Brute was either the great grandson, grandson or son of the Trojan Aeneas, depending upon which source you follow. Born in Italy, as a young boy he accidently shot and killed his father with a bow and arrow. He was subsequently banished from the country, and formed a small army with a group of Trojans enslaved in Greece. He apparently travelled through India, and after many battles in Gaul sailed to Britain. There, his army kill a population of Giants, and Brute becomes the first king of Britain.

 The Pitch

 Michael Bay could bring his distinctive brand of high voltage action to this ancient mythic story, with Gerard Butler as the mighty Brute. We’d be treated to his early years, the accidental death of his father, played by Liam Neeson, and his subsequent adventures. Along with his Trojan followers, he would battle great CGI armies, Giants and other mythological creatures. Following a heavy defeat at Gaul, the army retreats to the seas, and as all their skilled navigators were killed in battle, find themselves at an unknown island. They begin to explore, and are forced to fight for their lives against the vast giants that call the land home. Eventually emerging victorious thanks to Brutes leadership, his followers make him king, and he names the island Britain, a derivation of his own name.

Hereward the Wake

 The Lore

 In the 11th century, Hereward was supposedly part of the Anglo-Saxon resistance to William the Conqueror, and his Norman army. He is said to have initially rebelled against Edward the Confessor, resulting in exile to Europe, and being named an outlaw. He returned to England to try and help repel the Normans, along with a small Danish army. He was part of an alliance based on the Isle of Ely, and participated in attacks on the enemy around the Fen region of England. The Normans eventually launched an attack on the Isle of Ely, which ended in victory, though Hereward and and a number of others escaped, continuing the doomed resistance.

 The Pitch

I would be interested to see Paul Greengrass take on this kind of historical story. The guerrilla style attacks of the outlaw’s band, filmed in Greengrass’ traditional shaky-cam would be awesome, truly conveying the brutality of these brutal skirmishes, and the horror inherent in this kind of uncivilised warfare. Who else but Matt Damon to play Hereward, initially forced to live as an outcast, bravely returning from Europe with the Danish army to take on William and the Normans. Winning over his fellow warriors through valour and great leadership, Hereward quickly rises to General of his own squad, and his successful ambushes raise the ire of William the Conqueror, played by Hans Lander. William orders the attack on the Isle of Ely to end the constant harassment of his troops. We are treated to a Helm’s Deep type battle, but through the unique lens of director Greengrass. Hereward fights bravely, but is forced to retreat. He continues in vein to attack the Norman forces, and his legend begins when he is eventually killed in battle.

Guy of Warwick

 The Lore

 Guy was apparently a commoner who fell in love with a woman above his station, Lady Felice, a woman of noble birth. In order to prove he is a worthy suitor, he travels the land, fighting giants, dragons, a Dun Cow and various other mystical creatures. He becomes a knight, and returns for the Lady’s hand in marriage. However, overcome with guilt for his killings, he travels to the Holy Land to make amends. Eventually he returns, and lives as a recluse in a cave over the River Avon.

 The Pitch

 The various and obscure creatures involved in this story make it ideal for a filmmaker like Guillermo Del Toro. He has great skill at mixing fantastical beings with personal, emotional drama, and he is a uniquely gifted storyteller. The part of Guy could be played by an actor like Aaron Johnson. The Lady Felice is the kind of part that Gemma Arterton would be perfect for. Regular Del Toro collaborator, the fantastic Doug Jones is highly skilled at portraying wondrous, fantastical creatures. As such, he would be a great choice to play the creepy, unworldly beings Guy has to face.

So Guy, in our movie, falls in love with the Lady of higher standing. Her father, the Earl of Warwick (played by Michael Gambon) sends him out to prove his mettle. He does not want his daughter to marry a common man, however, as he has planned to marry her off to a rich nobleman in a position of power, as his own fortune has run dry. So he tells the nobleman, played by Mark Strong, to follow Guy, and ensure he is hampered in his quest. If the nobleman succeeds, he will win the Lady’s hand. After several complications arise during his quest, Guy eventually realises what is afoot. He allows Strong to be killed by the Dun Cow, before slaying it himself. When he returns and Strong doesn’t, the Earl is forced to allow the marriage. Guy however jilts Lady Felice at the altar, overcome with remorse at not saving the nobleman, and sales off to the Holy Land, leaving the franchise open for the inevitable sequel…

The Pedlar of Swaffham

 The Lore

 The titular pedlar, who indeed lived in Swaffham (or Soffham) in Norfolk, is said to have had a dream that if he travelled to London, and stood at London Bridge, he would receive beneficial news. He ignored the first dream, but as they persisted he decided to make the trip to London for better or worse. Once there, he spent several days at the bridge, but nothing happened. Eventually, a curious shop owner approached him, and asked why he had been at the bridge waiting for so long. The pedlar explained his story, and the shopkeeper thought him a fool. He told the pedlar about his own dream, in which he travelled to Swaffham, and dug underneath a tree, behind a pedlar’s house, discovering great treasure. He explained to the pedlar that he was too wise to embark on a similarly foolhardy errand in the opposite direction, in pursuit of a nonsensical dream. The pedlar returned to his home, and found sure enough the treasure under the tree. With his new found wealth, he paid for the rebuilding of the crumbling Soffham church. His effigy can be found to this day in stained glass windows in the town.

 The Pitch

 This story is suited to a quirky, personal drama, perhaps directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The dream sequences would be surreal, then we would follow the Pedlar’s journey, played by Jude Law,as he set out to London. Once there, he could meet an odd selection of different people who live and work around London Bridge. The pedlar would interact with their lives, getting to know them, helping them out, all the while chasing the thought that anything they say could be the news he is waiting for. It would allow for some hilarious situations, as several times he could get involved with some sort of mis-adventure, believing it will lead to the information his dreams prophesised. Once he finally gets the news, and subsequently the treasure, he could pay for the Swaffham church, then move to London to live amongst his friends. Using his newfound wealth to help them with the trials and tribulations he became a part of during his three days there, he discovers the real treasure is the people he has met, and the new life he has found.

So, what do you think? What other folk tales would make great Hollywood movies?

 Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

This week sees the release of Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood adaptation, starring Russell Crowe as the titular outlaw, and Matthew Macfadyen as the evil Sheriff of Nottingham. Scott is no stranger to epic historical action, having previously directed Gladiator, which also featured Australian actor Crowe.

 Scott’s Hood is just the latest in a long line of Robin Hood films, dating back to 1908. Since then, there have been at least 25 cinematic versions of the story (some say over 50), ranging from action/adventure with the Kevin Costner vehicle Prince of Thieves, the Disney animated version, and even musical comedy in the form of Mel Brooks’ Men in Tights. Along with this, there have also been several television versions. So what is it that makes Robin Hood such an enduring character? Why has the movie industry made such use of the tale, whilst ignoring many other characters from English folklore?

 There is a huge question mark over whether Robin Hood was a real person. Despite Scott and Crowe’s claims that this latest version is ‘historically accurate’, there has been no definite evidence produced to either prove or disprove the outlaw’s existence. The first mentions came from ballads and folktales, which were subsequently expanded upon in literature. For this reason, there is no ‘owner’ of the story of Robin Hood, and never has been. Because of this, there are no rights issues that relate to the making of a Robin Hood movie. Whilst there have been numerous different versions of the story, it would be impossible to show that any elements had been taken from someone else’s work, and with the writers that explored the history of Hood long dead, it really isn’t an issue anyway.

 The fact that there have been so many different tellings of the tale, and that there is no ‘accepted’ real version of the character’s life, means that there is no need for filmmakers to be overly concerned with historical accuracy. The settings, and technology of the time need to obviously fit to the period the story is set in, but most of the characters, and events can be altered and deleted at will. Whilst fans of the character may object to this, there is no definite source to point to in an argument about what is true or not. This makes it much easier for writers and directors to use the basic character to tell the story they want to tell, though most of the time the generally accepted timeline and plot elements are followed.

 For some adaptations, the opposite might be true. By basing a film on widely accepted events and plots, you minimize the amount of work required for constructing a storyline. All the groundwork has already been done, several times over, meaning the basic structure is already well in place. This makes it much quicker (and therefore cheaper) to get a script put together.

 Robin Hood is a globally recognised franchise. As a property, it already has a considerable following, those that are fans of the character, who will instantly want to see a movie based on his story. Marketing is easier for this same reason. The trailer can be free to show fantastic action and drama, without having to convey any of the already well known plot.

 So why is the character so appealing? Robin Hood in the generally accepted mythos was an ordinary man, a soldier in the crusades. He robbed from the rich, and gave to the poor. This noblest of quests, an outlaw selflessly risking his life to help the peasants and yeoman, is compelling enough. But throw in the evil Sheriff of Nottingham, the face of a corrupt governing body ripping off the common man, and you have the recipe for a true underdog story. A selfless hero, sticking it to the man is a theme that can have resonance in any era. We all look at our governments as corrupt, those with political power bending it to their own will. Robin Hood is the hero that stands against that.

 Thanks to years of storytelling, and the generally unchanged structure of storytelling convention throughout history, this is all done in a format perfectly styled for an entertaining movie. Robin arrives back from the Crusades to find these corrupt guardians have come to power. He sets about assembling an army, falls in love, and eventually overcomes the villains. All the elements are in place for a compelling film. The complex romantic relationship between Robin and Marion, and the obstacles they must overcome allows for many twists. The overbearing powers that be, and the way they mistreat their subjects makes for great political drama. And there is thrilling action inherent in the tale. This can be particularly unique too, with Robin’s weapon of choice, the bow and arrow, allowing for some great set pieces.

 Taking all this into account, the reasons for Hollywood’s love affair with the medieval English outlaw become obvious. Ridley Scott’s adaptation is another unique take, with a much darker, grittier look at the popular anti-hero. It won’t be the last time the story of Robin Hood is committed to film either. It has the potential, however, to be the best version, combining the acting prowess of Crowe with the fantastic filmmaking talent of the experienced Scott. I’m very much looking forward to seeing it, and discovering their take on a storied and well loved folk hero.

 Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

US audiences were privy to this back in March, so now it’s our turn to catch up on MGM’s latest offering! Director and long-standing production and writing collaborator to John Cusack (Grosse Point Blank and High Fidelity), Steve Pink delivers an unforgettable journey of retro mayhem and light-hearted, feel-good fun. Written by Josh Heald, Sean Anders and John Morris, this is the perfect must-see adventure flick in the run up to summer.

The amusing, self-explanatory title literally is about a time travelling hot tub! Come on… it’s a charming title, admit it. Once all pre-conceptions about logic and physics have been abandoned, you’ll be in for a real treat as you sit back and embrace this space-time continuum delight!

The story revolves around forty-somethings Adam (John Cusack) Lou (Rob Corddry), Nick (Craig Robinson) and Jacob (Clark Duke) as Adam’s geeky nephew. Desperate to break free from their humdrum middle-aged lives, these estranged three amigos (and nephew) decide to hit the road to shake off the blues and relive some of their glory days by revisiting a ski lodge for some much-needed partying. Met with über-disappointment on arrival, the ski resort’s shabby and run-down appearance spurs the guys to make the most of their weekend to let loose, live it up and kick back to their youth.

Cut to the questionable looking hot tub that’s seen better days in their former hotel room. Without wanting to give too much away about how this hot tub actually manages to transform itself into the whirlpool equivalent of the Delorean, it’s quite a bizarre, trippy spectacle to behold and is best kept as a surprise, but do be sure to keep an eye out for that reoccurring bear… Once in the tub, it’s 2010, but when they come out, it’s 1986!

Unbelievably outrageous? Yes, but Bill & Ted got away with it in their time travelling phone booth so just sit back and enjoy the ride as we immerse ourselves in this magical, nonsensical, swirly goodness!

At this point the movie really picks up some much-needed speed. After the guys come to the realisation that they’re back in 1986, they’re in for an even bigger surprise when they see the mirrored reflections of themselves. To everyone else they look like the teenagers they used to be, Jacob aside, and this scene really is one of the funniest throughout the movie. With Jacob faced with Doc Brown’s infamous theory of being erased from existence (whenever a time-traveller alters key events occurring in the past) the guys make it their mission to honour the rules of time travel to find a way back to their future in 2010… or do they? The longer they stay, the greater the danger that Jacob will cease to exist as he flickers in and out of view. Sound familiar? Great Scott!

There are so many funny moments during this film. The humour is very crude, but also cleverly dry and ironic in places, so fans will appreciate many of the 80s pop culture references here. Not to mention the fact that Poison and Motley Crue feature heavily on the soundtrack, along with countless nods to some of the most popular scenes from films born out of the 80s. Despite the slow start, cheap thrills, gratuitous nudity, low-brow humour and wasted opportunities to add more depth to some of it’s core characters, Pink successfully manages to capture the essence of cult 80s comedies which prevail to this day. Those unfamiliar or disinterested in this decade shouldn’t be too disheartened or disappointed – there’s an abundance of over-the-top action and criss-crossing shenanigans to keep you entertained.

There are some notable appearances worth mentioning too. Namely, the legendary Chevy Chase who delightfully portrays the role of the mysterious and often ambiguous keeper/repairman of the magical hot tub. This is a real treat for Chase fans but it doesn’t feel like he gets enough screen time, sadly. It’s still, however, a pleasure to see him on the big screen again and listening to his character’s random, nonsensical musings regarding the power of the hot tub is really quite brilliant.

Then there’s the one-armed, then two-armed bellhop played by 80s favourite Crispin Glover. Glover’s performance is actually pretty hilarious – a real treat for his long-time Back to the Future fans. The ongoing “how does he lose his other arm” plot is quite gripping…. But there shall be no spoilers posted here as to how, when and where he loses that second arm! Lastly, a pesky Caddyshack-esque squirrel becomes a fixture in this flick and keeps popping up throughout. Somewhat reminiscent of Scrat in Ice-Age but harmless fun nonetheless.

With solid performances all-round, one actor stands out and really steals the show. Rob Corddry truly is the star of this film and nails every scene he’s in. In fact, you’d be hard-pressed to not be charmed by his vulgarity! The chemistry on-set is flawless and gives you a real sense that the guys were having as much fun filming this shameless, Porky’s style adventure as they were starring in it. It’s also really nice to see John Cusack pay homage to an era he is so often fondly remembered for.

Hot Tub Time Machine is a fantastic 1980s throwback comedy. It’s a feel-good, laugh-out-loud a minute nostalgic journey of awesomeness and leaves you wanting more. With punchy dialogue, hilariously crude humour, a rockin’ soundtrack and blinding wardrobe to boot, audiences can expect to be in for a whirl of a ride. Never has a blast from the past been so much fun getting itself back to the future.

And before we forget, just how many times did you see THAT bear during the film…?

Hot Tub Time Machine is out on general release on 7th May.

You can check out our recent Podcast which features a segment on HTTM with Jon Lyus, Andy Petrou and /Film’s Brendon Connelly.

On the surface, this is a fantastic idea, and great news for Marvel fans. I’d been thinking recently that i’d much rather watch a series of sub-par comic book adaptations than average remakes and rehashes like next week’s Friday the 13th reboot. There are scores of lesser known Marvel characters, all with a rich story history, ready to be mined for the gold contained within. The diverse range of third and fourth tier characters would allow for some very different movies, and some very interesting storylines.

If the company are able to release a movie every six months or so, it would also have a fantastic effect on their comic book sales. As it stands, only the best known characters are adapted into movies, and because they are catapulted more into the public consciousness, they become even more well known. It’s a very symbiotic circle. By introducing some of their lesser known properties, they can generate more interest in the comic series that have a smaller circulation.

There is a danger here, however, that Marvel are overstretching themselves. Big, expensive movies like Iron Man make a lot of money because they look expensive, there are big stars to draw the public in, and there is plenty of time to develop good story concepts. By pulling themselves in too many directions, they risk overstretching their creativity. Yes, they do have Disney as support, and Disney are clearly committed to using all their resources to create new live action franchises.

But Disney are new to the comic world, and whilst they do have a wealth of big budget production resources, it will be the Marvel people that will have to oversee the story ideas, and keep some kind of quality control. If these budget productions are not up to scratch, they could have a negative effect on the better known franchise movies. If movie goers stumble into too many low quality superhero pictures, there is a risk they will be alienated to the whole concept.

There is a low number of cut price directors and writers that can craft a great film on such a low budget. Kick-Ass was a low budget production, but it was put together by a talented director and writers, and a lot of time and effort was put into putting it together well, and putting it together right. And as it stands, it is at risk of financial failure. It will make its budget back, and will probably end up making a small profit, but if this is the outcome with a respected filmmaker, what can we expect from the kinds of directors and writers that Marvel’s discount projects are going to be able to attract?

There will be a big positive impact though, from this news, along with the other big movie announcements Marvel are making. DC only have one property that currently has a movie in production, that being the Green Lantern. Superman is only at the screenplay stage, and the early draft stage at that. Batman 3, assuming it does go ahead, is even further behind. Marvel’s actions, and the press their developments are drawing for the company should be a real kick up the backside for the entertainment arm at DC.

DC Entertainment’s Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns recently hinted at some announcements due to be made regarding the DC/Warner future as far as comic book adaptations go. These announcements will now need to be pretty exciting if they hope to compete. There have been rumblings of a potential Flash movie, and i expect this movie will be DC’s first announcement. Alongside this, there could very well be plans unveiled for the first Green Arrow movie. This is probably unlikely to be the potentially awesome Super Max project. With David S Goyer’s involvement with Christopher Nolan’s superhero projects, Super Max seems to have entered development hell. We’d be more like to see a more traditional Green Arrow film, with hints at a potential Justice League or even JSA movie on the horizon.

The ace up DC’s sleeve may just be a Wonder Woman movie. Joss Whedon’s attempt was aborted, and he is now on Marvel’s movie team. But a WW movie done well could well be the best chance DC have of grabbing a new following. Marvel haven’t got a female superheroine movie on their slate, so DC could make a grab for the women’s vote with a full bore, big budget Wonder Woman adaptation.

DC have grabbed a lot of momentum within the comic book world. Last year’s big Blackest Night multi-character event has lead into this year’s new comic series, Brightest Day. They need to try and carry over this momentum into other media before Marvel becomes the name synonymous with superheroes in the broader, mainstream sphere.

Whatever Marvel decide, there is no denying they have made a very successful transition into the movie business, and are doing their bit to erase the bad memories of awful Marvel adaptations like Daredevil, Elektra and The Fantastic Four movies. If they go ahead with their budget range, i will certainly be in the audience, i just pray they do their due diligence before making this big step.
Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

A couple of stories started bouncing about today. The first came from an MTV interview with Martin Lawrence, and concerned a movie that might be happening, Bad Boys 3. Martin Lawrence has been shilling the idea of another Bad Boys film for a long time now, and it is easy to see why. Whilst co-star Will Smith and director Michael Bay have gone on to much bigger and better things, Lawrence has struggled to find another winning formula. With shoddy comedies  like Big Momma’s House and Wild Hogs on his CV, he is desperate for a big hit to re-establish his name. The project sounds like it is starting to become a ‘real’ possibility, but not yet ‘really real’. You can find the interview here.

The other story, courtesy of Roger Friedman’s Showbiz 411, concerned another threequel which sounds like it really is going to go ahead. The first two Men in Black movies made a lot of money, and a genuine star of Smith. Family comedies with a compelling concept behind them, the Men in Black pictures combined sci-fi, humour with reasonably entertaining storylines, and the first at least will long be remembered as a fun movie. According to Barry Sonnenfeld, Will Smith is apparently signed up for Men in Black 3, which will be in 3D no less. Tommy Lee Jones is also apparently in, though not officially signed, and it hasn’t been fully confirmed if Tommy will be buddying up with Smith again, or if they will be trying something different. You can find the original story here.

Two threequels, two attempts to cash in on a fondly remembered property, and the common link is superstar Will Smith. I don’t generally have a problem with sequels, possibly stemming from a childhood where i was desperate to see follow-ups to my favourite films. My problem is with Will Smith’s involvement. Don’t get me wrong, i don’t dislike Smith, i think he is a good worker with great on-screen presence and charisma. My problem with Smith’s involvement is that he doesn’t, or at least shouldn’t need to do either of these projects. From my reckoning, Will Smith is the last remaining star capable of guaranteeing a film box office success. So why waste this power on throwaway sequels and tired rehashes?

There have been numerous stories over the last year or so concerning Smith, and various ideas and concepts that have failed to make it in to pre-production. Some of these ideas have been really interesting, and involved big directors like Steven Spielberg. Why so many have collapsed is difficult to say, but the result has been Smith’s continued absence from the big screen. I mean seriously, he hasn’t had a movie in theatres for a year and a half! Possibly it is a case of timing, as that gap coincides with the global recession. It may be that studios were unwilling to take the risk on the various projects he has been involved with. If this is the case, it is just unfortunate, and i hope he hasn’t agreed to Men in Black 3 merely because he has given up on getting an original idea off the ground.

If, in the current financial climate, anyone has the ability and clout to get an original idea developed into a movie, it is someone with the reputation and box office record of Big Willie. This presents him with an awesome responsibility, he really should be using this to help some great new projects through instead of going back to the well. Smith has made a career out of mixing huge, blockbuster sci-fi movies with smaller, personal dramas. This kind of ‘one for the studio, one for me’ approach has served him well, and he is clearly pretty shrewd.

 I may be being unfair. It could very well be that in the interim between his last movie and now, he has felt his influence beginning to wane. It could well be that he feels frustrated by his difficulties getting original projects off the ground, and that by building his profile back up with a couple of pictures that are guaranteed of success, he will once again be allowed the leeway to get a major personal project on the slate. If so, then i guess there are worse choices than a 3D Men in Black. Bad Boys 3 being a case in point.

 Whatever the reason for the revival of these projects, i wish Will Smith luck in whatever he chooses to do. I’m not a huge Smith fan, but he is good at what he does, and he works hard at improving his range. Two years is too long for such a huge star to be away from the big screen, so whatever he IS going to do, i hope it’s set in motion quickly.

 Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

There was already a rumour doing the rounds, but Deadline Hollywood confirmed yesterday that Joss Whedon is the man in the frame to direct Marvel’s much lamented and highly anticipated Avengers film. A surprise choice to be sure, but a very good one as far as i’m concerned. You see, i was in the process of writing an article about the lack of bold choices of directors for recent comic book adaptations when i heard the news, and Joss Whedon’s appointment, above all else, can be considered bold.

I think it’s important to start out by saying that i’m not one of Whedon’s loyal fans. I loved Buffy and Angel, but was distinctly underwhelmed by Firefly when i saw it. I didn’t much like the characters, and thought the storylines were a little dull. I didn’t really get the whole Doctor Horrible thing either, and only watched the first two episodes of Dollhouse. So why do i think Whedon is such a great choice? He has after all only directed one film so far, right?

I went into Serenity not expecting a great deal, as i said, i don’t really like the characters, and i wasn’t expecting a great story. What i got was a film that, though it will never make my top ten films, i considered in many ways to be the perfect movie. I still wasn’t a huge fan of the characters, and i didn’t think the actors were all up to feature film standard. But in terms of storyline, plot, structure and pace, Serenity is the most well constructed, tightest action movie you’re likely to find.

Every element, incident, joke and character moment is revisited and paid off by the end, and the banter and action carry the plot through at breakneck pace with not a wasted second. That Serenity didn’t do better business at the box office is a travesty, because it means millions of people missed out on seeing one of the most well conceived sci-fi films of all time.

If Whedon can bring the same brilliance to the Avengers movie, with the rich characters and talented actors involved, it could really be something special. He has worked on Marvel comics in the past, and the ensemble casts in both Buffy and Angel were really his own Avengers, his own X-Men, with each individual character bringing something different though equally effective to the table. He is also apparently taking a pass at the screenplay, which is more good news. He has an ear for great dialogue, and a great ability to draw a plot together by utilising all the different strands, which should make for a great, multi-layered piece.

Whedon is definitely a risk though. He lacks feature experience, and his TV work can be looked at as an even mixture of success and failure. He has never really had to deal with big actors, and therefore big egos before. His departure from the Wonder Woman project, and the subsequent collapse of the proposed movie is also potentially a bad portent. But a risky appointment, to me, is better than the safe option. A risky appointment brings the hope of a genuine classic, whilst the safe option is highly likely to lead to mediocrity. This is why i am worried about some upcoming comic book adaptations.

The Green Lantern movie is currently in production. Ryan Reynolds is, i feel, great casting. His cameo as Deadpool in last year’s Wolverine movie was the best thing about it, and he is looking to be on the verge of superstardom. My reservations about the end quality of the movie rest with the appointment of director Martin Campbell. Don’t get me wrong, Campbell is a very solid director. He was responsible for GoldenEye, my favourite Bond film, and Casino Royale, seemingly everybody else’s favourite.

Look beyond Bond, however, and there isn’t a lot to suggest he is capable of putting out a spectacular Green Lantern film. Remember, Green Lantern’s power is extraterrestrial in origin, and many of his stories take place away from Earth, with a wide variety of unusual characters. Campbell’s style is very gritty, very much grounded in reality. To be able to do justice to such an outlandish character, you need some real flair, and a big imagination. I’m just not sure if it is the right kind of movie for a director like Campbell.

I fear more for the Captain America movie. It has become obvious that Marvel are attempting to put this one together on the cheap. The list of actors being considered for the lead was alarmingly poor, but thankfully common sense won out, and i think Marvel can consider themselves lucky to have procured the considerable talent of Chris Evans, particularly given the limited salary that has been reported.

The choice of director however is even more alarming. The appointment of Joe Johnston is particularly uninspiring to me. His CV reads as the very definition of ‘bland’, and the problem is that in the wrong hands, Captain America himself can be a very bland character. He has the same ‘all American hero’ persona as Superman, but with a much more mundane origin. A director with far more flare and panache is required to bring this story alive, and considering the calibre of recent Johnston films like The Wolfman and Hidalgo, this could end in disaster.

Strange really, because i think the company has been pretty brave with their other pre-Avengers project. Kenneth Branagh hasn’t had a whole lot of experience with action, or done a great deal of feature directing in general in recent years. So his appointment as director of Thor was as much as a surprise as Whedon’s, if not more so. With a relatively unknown lead in Chris Hemsworth, it’ll be interesting to see how the movie looks to be shaping up when we start getting set photos.

Comic books have a rich history, the characters a huge, continually developed back story. It should be easy to put together a fantastic story for any one of them, and a lot of the burden for this will be carried by the screenwriters. If they pick out the right story elements, and construct an interesting plot, it will just be down to the directors to bring them to the screen in a compelling way. Both The Green Lantern and Captain America have the potential to be great, i just hope the writers and the directors make the most of that potential, and bring us the movies that these storied characters deserve.

Tomorrow i’ll take a look at recent past comic book adaptations, how some bold choices have resulted in great movies that comic book fans can be proud of, and some of the blander choices have produced comic book movies better left forgotten.

Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Based on one of the greatest TV characters of all time and one of my personal heroes in Angus MacGyver, MacGruber looks pretty funny and although with some hit & miss gags the trailer makes it look like a huge amount of fun. MacGruber is based on the excellent Saturday Night live sketch of the same name and it’s well worth checking out.

The plot summary of MacGruber is:- Former special operative MacGruber (Will Forte) is called back into action to take down his nemesis, Dieter Von Cunth, who’s in possession of a nuclear warhead and plots to destroy Washington, D.C. Assembling a team of experts of the Human Shield, Dixon Piper (Ryan Phillippe) and master of disguise, Vicki St. Elmo (Kristen Wiig), MacGruber and his team will hunt down Cunth and bring him to justice saving the world in the process.

And below is the movie poster for MacGruber, It’s due out May 21st in the US and June 4th in UK.

That Caine is able to embody a man of frustration and sadness whose inaction turns to violent action with fluidity and pathos is a testament to the talent of the man and the capability of the film’s director Dabiel Barber.

Make no mistake, Harry Brown is a long and hard look into the dark heart of British society, and no one can stare into it for too long without closing up into self-defeating denial or taking a stand. Complex and unafraid, this is so much more than a British Gran Torino.

Barry reviewed the film on release and you can read his take on Harry Brown here and I’m going to give my verdict here on the DVD experience.

Daniel Barber’s first feature is brutal, and sets out its play with a truly nasty opening scene utilising the device of a video shot on a mobile phone camera and instantly we are thrown into a world which, despite the Daily Mail hysterics, actually exists and one that is not often shown on screen.

I believed in the passion Barber and the assembled cast and crew had for this story, as there is an urgency and willingness to show life on the estates of London as bleak and slow and Barber’s camera begins as voyeuristic as Harry himself, standing by while the gang of kids harass, deal drugs and kill unconcerned while the police do nothing.

We follow Harry’s journey from fear, to nervous action to determined revenge and all the while our morals are kept in check the unrelenting cast of nasties who patrol the run down estate, and when the violence is handed out by Brown there is nothing we as an audience can do except watch its awful cycle play out.

And it is mesmerising, and it is uncomfortable and some people will not want to see this play out, but a stunning turn from Caine and great support from Liam Cunningham, Ben Drew and Emily Mortimer make this a raw and relevant film, with some standout scenes (the drug den is a great example, and include a line every bit as iconic as any in Caine’s career) and an inventive use of camera and location that elevates this one. It is highly recommended.

The DVD and Blu-ray extras are comprised of:

Interviews with cast and crew
Deleted Scenes
Music Video
Feature audio commentary with Sir Michael Caine, director Daniel Barber and producer Kris Thykier

And it is the commentary which provides the most enjoyment, though having the three men laugh and joke their way through such a bleak film is an unusual contrast but Caine especially is a great voice and his anecdotes about this film and others in his long career make for a very entertaining watch.

With a deftness of touch much akin to a US government committee on WMDs, the Universal Pictures marketing department set out to convince us that Green Zone was essentially Bourne 4. Much like the controversial reports regarding the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction however, there were those that wanted to believe, those that did believe and those that were not fooled in the slightest.

You can see why Green Zone was seen as a tough sell. The lack of success at the box office for The Hurt Locker, despite its great critical success showed that the American public is not yet ready to explore the war they never wanted. Those against the war don’t want to see it made into entertainment, and the heavily charged political message contained within, that the wrong decisions were made for the wrong reasons, would not sit well with the Bush supporters.

So selling Paul Greengrass’ latest as an extension of the Bourne series, an intelligent thriller with breakneck action, seemed the way to go. The presence of Matt Damon certainly made it the obvious choice. The problem is, they probably lost as much audience due to some poor review scores as they gained by mis-selling the product. You see, Green Zone has garnered a very split vote critically. Look on Rotten Tomatoes, and you can see a pretty even split between fresh and rotten.

I’ve been fascinated reading the conflicting views of Green Zone. I’ve read reviews that praised its in-depth storyline, and others that have claimed it was shallow. Some reward the bravery of the honest political message contained, whilst some call it mean spirited, factually inaccurate and naive. I haven’t seen it myself yet, i didn’t want my own opinion to affect the bias of this article. But it seems to me that those genuinely going in expecting it to be an extension of the Bourne series felt robbed, mis-led, and were angry at the fact that they had someone else’s political views so firmly forced upon them.

Conversely, those that went in looking for a film that would ask tough questions appreciated it much more, and came out with their expectations firmly fulfilled. What’s most interesting is if you click the ‘top reviewers’ button. Whatever you may think of the notion of top reviewers, and whether some peoples analysis is more valuable than others, the reviewers in this section are seen as top for a reason. And their collective verdict is 100% fresh. Whether you agree with a movies’ politics or not should not colour your perspective of its quality. Indeed, a film that questions your beliefs, and makes you think about a different point of view is the kind of film we need more of.

I can’t help but feel if the marketing campaign had sold Green Zone for what it was, the review scores would probably have skewed higher, and more people would have been drawn in by the potential of an intelligent political drama. If reviewers had gone in to Green Zone knowing exactly what to expect, it wouldn’t have caught them off guard, and maybe they would have enjoyed the experience a lot more.

I feel most sorry for director Paul Greengrass. Green Zone is in many ways the culmination of his work to date. Combining the intelligent, dramatic exploration of real life issues from his earlier films with the blistering action and twisting plot details of his more recent work in the Bourne series, it has the recipe for the perfect marriage of story driven drama and popcorn blockbuster. If the commercial failure and ambiguous critical reception of Green Zone mean we don’t get to see Greengrass approach his work in this way in the future, it would be a real shame. Because whatever you think of his politics, he is making a genuine attempt at bringing thought provoking storylines and political issues to a multiplex audience, and i for one applaud him for it.

 Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

If you’ve listened to the HeyUGuys Mouth Off podcasts about nostalgia this week (here and here), or indeed followed the news of endless remakes and franchises in development over the last year, you know the eighties are very current right now. Periods always come back in vogue, and we look back fondly at the great times we remember. This is very much the influence behind Hot Tub Time Machine, the new comedy from director Steve Pink.

The men all pass out drunk, but when they come to, find they are no longer in Kansas anymore. They have woken up in the year 1986. Though they look the same to each other, it turns out they look like they did 24 years ago to everyone else. What’s more, they find themselves at the Winterfest music festival, which they originally attended together all those years ago. At first they are afraid to break the timeline Back to the Future-style. It then occurs to them, however, that they have the chance to make different decisions that could affect their lives for the better.

John Cusack’s career was made in the eighties. He was in several iconic films from the period, particularly remembered for Say Anything. Whilst he has been working fairly solidly since then, the main roles he is known for, in films like Grosse Pointe Blank and High Fidelity, also firmly place him as a child of the eighties fondly remembering his childhood. It’s easy to see why he was a great choice for this slice of comedic nostalgia.

Co-star Rob Corddry was most recently seen on the big screen in Oliver Stone’s W, Taking Chances and The Winning Season. Craig Robinson is best known for his part as Darryl Philbin in the American Office, was in last year’s dire The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard, and can be seen later in the year in the promising The Other Guys. Clark Duke is a regular in the TV series Greek, and can be seen later this month in Kick-Ass. 80′s icons Chevy Chase (National Lampoons), Crispin Glover (Back to the Future) and William Zabka (The Karate Kid) make appearances too.

Director Steve Pink is relatively inexperienced, his only previous feature film was 2006′s Accepted. He is better known as a screenwriter, having been responsible for the Cusack movies previously mentioned, Grosse Pointe Blank and High Fidelity, which both dealt with nostalgia for a 1980′s adolescence. He has also worked as an actor, in both Grosse Pointe Blank and yet another Cusack picture, America’s Sweethearts. Writing duties this time around went to Josh Heald, Sean Anders and John Morris. Heald, also responsible for the story, is a first time feature writer. Anders has a bit more experience, having written Sex Drive and She’s Out of My League alongside Morris.

The Hangover was one of last year’s surprise success stories. This bodes well for Hot Tub Time Machine. The story of grown men, trying to recapture their younger days, getting drunk with hilarity ensuing is mirrored very much here. There is arguably more scope in this movie however. The idea of fantasy wish fulfillment, going back and reliving events knowing what you do now, isn’t a new one, but hasn’t been done in quite this way before. The potential for hilarious situations is clear, with the protagonists knowledge of what originally happened good for some clever situations. Early buzz from test screenings has been very good, the film has been said to be hilarious from start to finish. Cusack has an easy charm, and has shown a talent for smart comedy throughout his career.

Financially, in theory Hot Tub Time Machine could match the performance of The Hangover last year. Neither have a particularly well known cast, and Cusack is arguably a much bigger name than any of the other actors in either film. He appeared as the lead in last year’s 2012, which made huge box office, though the carnage and destruction of geographical landmarks was really the big star of that movie. However, dramatic comedy Greenburg is also released the same weekend, and the star power of Ben Stiller could prove too much competition for Hot Tub Time Machine at the box office. An opening weekend of  $10-20m can be seen as a success, particularly as there hasn’t been a huge amount of marketing so far.

If Hot Tub Time Machine does well, it could mean great things are on the way for the relatively unknown cast. The premise is smart, the potential for humour is certainly there, and it could be the first surprise hit of 2010.

Hot Tub Time Machine is released in the US this Friday 26th March. There is currently no release date scheduled for the UK, so we’ll have to content ourselves with the trailer here.

Bazmann – You can find me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

Jude Law is Remy. Remy is a repo man. He doesn’t repossess homes, cars, or even furniture. He repossesses human organs. In the future, the process for creating artificial organs has been perfected. Much like a car, you can purchase the organ of your choice on credit. But the consequences for not meeting the repayments on your liver, kidney or heart are grave. If you do not pay, the organ will be taken back, with no regard for the well-being of its new owner. And these medical miracles do not come cheap. Remy is one of the best repo men in the business, but when an accident means he ends up with an artificial heart himself, Remy finds himself on the run when he isn’t able to pay for it.

Jude Law is one of those actors that is always around the spotlight, working regularly in big films, but never seems to carry a lead performance. He HAS played lead roles. He played the titular Alfie in the remake of the classic Michael Caine movie. He also played the part of Sky Captain in Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. He is best known however for his great supporting roles. He has twice been nominated for Academy Awards for supporting actor, in The Talented Mr Ripley and Cold Mountain. Most recently he has appeared in films like The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and in Guy Ritchie’s hugely successful Sherlock Holmes movie just a few months ago.

Forest Whitaker is Jake, Remy’s former partner. Jake works for The Union, a mega corporation that supplies these man-made human parts. Jake is The Union’s most formidable agent. He must now hunt down Remy, and take back what is no longer his. Whitaker has had a diverse history of roles. He came to prominence with his outstanding performance in Ghost Dog, and was awarded the Oscar for best actor for his role in The Last King of Scotland. The particular brand of martial arts that he learnt for the former role has stood him in good stead in this action picture, and he makes good use of them. Whittaker can be seen now more in TV shows like ER and Brotherhood.

Remy is helped in his escape by ex-wife Beth, played by Alice Braga. She shows him the techniques required to disappear from the system, hiding his identity and avoiding security along the way. Braga is probably best known for her role in the highly acclaimed Cidade de Deus (City of God). The Brazilian’s first big Hollywood role was in 2007′s I Am Legend, opposite Will Smith.

Also present is the fantastic Liev Schreiber (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), who plays Remy’s boss Frank. Remy’s current wife is played by Carice Van Houten (Valkyire), and his son Peter is played by Chandler Canterbury. Canterbury is a rising young star recently seen in Alex Proya’s Knowing, and alongside Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Repo Men is directed by Miuel Sapochnik. Sapochnik is somewhat of an unknown quantity. Aside from a short film in 2000 called The Dreamer, and a TV project involving popstar Louise Redknapp in 2001, he doesn’t have any work on record, and certainly no feature films.

The movie is based on the novel The Repossession Mambo, by writer Eric Garcia. Garcia also wrote the novel Matchstick Men, which was made into the movie of the same name starring Nicholas Cage and Sam Rockwell. He has adapted the screenplay for Repo Men himself, alongside Garrett Lerner. Lerner has recently been a writer for the Fox series House, as well as numerous other TV shows. 

The signs aren’t good for Repo Men. With a highly inexperienced director, and a screenplay by two first time feature screenwriters, it could suffer. The lacklustre marketing campaign suggests that the studio doesn’t hold much confidence in the finished product either. The story could be good though. It sounds very much like a spin on Logan’s Run, or Michael Bay’s The Island. The principal cast ARE solid actors, and having a novel as the base of the story suggests the plot should be well fleshed out.

Commercially, Repo Men is a difficult one. Law and Whitaker are good actors who have achieved critical acclaim. They do not however, have a great record of drawing big numbers at the box office. Whitaker is most recently known for television work, and Law has a career of great supporting roles rather than leads. With Alice in Wonderland only a couple of weeks into its run, and Matt Damon’s Green Zone just beginning, there isn’t a lot of room at the box office for a sci-fi action movie with low profile personnel. An opening of more than $5m can be looked at as a big success, though will probably be seen as a disappointment when compared against the movies’ budget.

Hopefully Repo Men can evoke the spirit of a great Philip K Dick style storyline, rather than a mediocre, half hearted sci-fi yarn like last year’s Surrogates.

Repo Men is released in the US next Friday 19th March, and in the UK on 23rd April.
Bazmann – You can follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/baz_mann

The astonishing success of Avatar does have its drawbacks, primarily how to overcome the inevitable disappointment of the transfer, and loss of the all important third dimension, to the home entertainment market. The answer is simple: Re-release the film but add in all of the extra scenes which were left on the cutting room floor.

That’s the rumour, according to THR, who put an extra forty minutes on the running time of the film, already a not inconsiderable 162 minutes, however the likelihood is that the extra footage will far less than this, to remain in the IMAX 170 minute limit.

Cynics may point out that the beating of this particularly bountiful cash pinata through a re-release following the 2D DVD and Blu-ray in late Spring but I’ve always had the feeling that Avatar would be around again sooner than we thought. With the proposed sequels no doubt gearing up for production, as well as Cameron’s rumoured 2012 Titanic re-release in 3D, it seems as though the huge Avatar fanbase will have many more opportunities to return to Pandora again and again.