For those of you that thought showering was just a time to wind down and get clean, you are about to get a rude awakening as Psycho returns for yet another instalment, but this time it’s television.
Even if you’ve never seen the 1960 film Psycho, its sequels, the prequel, its last attempt at a TV spinoff or the 1998 remake, you probably know about the infamous shower scene and that’s because the film, especially that scene, is a horror classic. Show me one other film that had to be shot in black and white to avoid being ‘too gory’, a concept which is lost these days.
The original film is about, momma’s boy, Norman Bates who runs a motel with his mother. Then an unsuspecting shower user comes to stay and the rest is Hollywood history. Two sequels followed, completely unrelated to the two sequels of the book the original film was based on, then came a prequel, that looked at Bates’ teenage years, followed by a spinoff were the motel is reopened and murders start again and finally, in 1998, a nearly shot for shot remake of the original film was made. The new TV series will be called Bates Motel, the same name used for the spinoff, and will once again examine the teenage years of Norman Bates.
Though still in the early stages of development the show is said to give a close look at how Norman became a psycho. The story will show him from childhood and through his teenage years, providing the pilot gets picked up. Viewers will get to see how his mother, Norma, and her lover damaged Norman, putting him on the path to become a killer. Last time a Psycho show was proposed, the pilot wasn’t picked up and it was instead turned into a TV movie spinoff. Hopefully this version doesn’t suffer the same fate as it will be interesting to see were, in 2012, they will take the story. It’s no secret that movies are scarier these days than they were in the past, how will this change the story?
What do you think? Would you like to see this show get made? Are you a fan of the original movie? Have you ever read the book? Let me know by voting a leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to follow/subscribe and, if you enjoyed this post, click the like button.
The Dark Knight Rises is one of the most anticipated films of 2012 and now, thanks to Entertainment Weekly, we have some new images to keep us interested.
The pictures show a new, upgraded, Batman suit and a small glance at were its stored, the Batcave. They also give a really good look at bane who is fighting with Batman in one of the pictures. In another picture Gordon is seen backed against a wall holding a gun, possibly about to experience whatever it is that sends him to the hospital.
The pictures look pretty impressive, but it’ll mean nothing if we can’t understand Bane. Personally, I never saw a big problem with him, but a lot of people did and numerous comments have been released, from people involved in with film, saying not to worry. Despite rumours to the contrary, Writer, Jonathan Nolan, has said that they will not have to do voiceovers and that when fans see more they will have no problem understanding him.
What do you think? Have these pictures got your mind on the plot? Do you like the new Batman suit? Are you planning on seeing the movie when it comes out in July? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe/follow and click the like button, but only if you like it don’t lie to me.
Production on the live action American adaptation of Akira has stopped, will this be the end of the project entirely or is it just another speed bump?
Work on the Akira remake has been anything but smooth, it’s already had its budget slashed from $150 million to $90 million, changed director and been rewritten by several different writers. However, now Warner Bros have stopped pre-production of the film completely. Some think this is the end for the project, despite statements released saying that it was not, though maybe that’s just wishful thinking from the diehard fans that have been, understandably, anxious and critical of the remake.
At first it was thought that production had stopped due to another budget cut, but now it’s been reported that it is more rewrites that are causing the halt. It’s worrying to think that it’s taking so many people to write something that has already been made, but hey that’s Hollywood. It could be taken as a sign that some major changes to the story have accorded, hopefully not though as Akira has a huge fan base that want the story to be respected in this, and every other, version.
Reports suggest that Warner Bros are eager to get the project up and running again, but it has been in production since the rights were bought back in 2008. Since then, there have been a series of stop and starts, which means that it could be a few years before filming actually begins. However, it seems unlikely as casting has already started with Garrett Hedlund in the lead role, as Kaneda, and Kristen Stewart, Helena Bonham Carter and Ken Watanabe in negotiations to appear in the film. Also the part of the second lead role, Tetsuo, has been narrowed down to two actors; Dane DeHaan and Michael Pitt. The decision was supposed to be announced after Christmas, but the break in production has no doubt caused this to be delayed.
Regardless of all of the problems they’ve encountered, there is still a big chance that this film will be made, and maybe even on time, but if they don’t respect the source material then is there really a point in remaking the film in the first place?
What do you think? Are you an Akira fan? Would you like production to be cancelled permanently? Who do you think should play Tetsuo; Dane DeHaan or Michael Pitt? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe/follow, click the like button and follow me on Twitter.
Universal Studios have announced plans to make a sequel to the hit, 2011, comedy film Bridesmaids, but will it be without star and co-writer Kristen Wiig?
When approached to write the follow up film, Wiig said that she, and her writing partner Annie Mumolo, were not working on that, at least not at the moment, they ‘aren’t planning a sequel’ and ‘are writing something else’. Wiig maintained this firm stance even after a lunch meeting with the studio. Unfortunately, not taking no for an answer, Universal may be planning on going ahead with the film without their leading lady/writer.
A proposed idea for the sequel, would follow Melissa McCarthy’s character, Megan, who many, myself included, thought stole the show in the first one. However, it was Wiig and Mumolo that made that character, and the other characters, funny, so will different writers be able to replicate that or are they just wasting their time? It’s not that Wiig and Mumolo are the best writers in the world, but they did put together a great comedy film that focuses on, occasional, strong female characters, which is something you don’t see every day. Normally they either follow male characters or they’re your typical rom com, which aren’t usually funny.
Both before and after its release, Bridesmaids, was compared to the Hangover, often being called the female version. Now that there have been two successful Hangover films, with a third one on the way, it is no surprise that Universal want to compete with their hit, especially considering the relatively small budget needed to make the film. However, is the risk of destroying the original with a bad sequel, that’s really a spinoff, too great or will the desire to make money win out? Of course the money will win in the end, it generally does in these situations, but hopefully Wiig signs up or, at very least, the writing duo are replaced by someone equally as good.
What do you think? Did you like the first Bridesmaids film? Do you think they should carry on with the original writers? Is there even any need for a sequel? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button. Twitter, yeah that’s right I have a Twitter account, just saying.
Paramount has confirmed that a fourth film, in the Paranormal Activity series, is in production.
This news comes as a surprise to just about no one, these movies are so cheap to make and rake in millions. It’s not hard to see why they’d want the franchise to continue, but how long can they keep going before they’re just forcing something, that should have ended a long time ago, into our faces? Final Destination comes to mind, though I am a sucker for those films, and I’m not saying Paranormal Activity has reached that point yet, just wondering if they’ll stop before it does.
The first Paranormal Activity introduced the viewers to this couple, Katie and Micah, and we learn, along with the Micah, that Katie is haunted by a demon. As the two, especially Micah, play around with the spirit the haunting gets worse. We are then, in the second one, shown Katie’s sister, Kristi, and her family being haunted, which provides some answers about the demon. The third instalment explores Katie and Kristi’s childhood, thus further going into the origin of the haunting, but leaving many unanswered questions about the characters in the present day. This is potentially what the fourth film will focus on and if so this could, and probably should, be the end of the series.
Paranormal Activity is, in my eyes, a great franchise. It takes everything good about old ghost stories and just looks at it in a different way. There’s nothing really overly complicated, though the plot does get deeper as the films go on, and there’s something very scary about keeping things simple. It’s like how bad practical effects are classic, but bad CGI is laughable. My only hope is that they don’t mess it up. Keep going for the story and the characters, not for the money and the fans.
What do you think? Are you excited about Paranormal Activity 4? Have you seen the other 3? Do you think they’re scary? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe/follow and click the like button. P.S. I have a Twitter account, just saying nonchalantly.
Once upon a time, there was a girl, named Snow White, who cooked and cleaned for seven men until she was killed by a piece of fruit. Don’t worry, she was brought back by a little harmless necrophilia, aka kiss from a Prince. In 2012, this charming tale will be retold, twice. One starring Kristen Stewart and one starring Lily Collins.
You’ll be glad to know that in the original story there was no necrophilia; Snow White was very much alive when the prince kissed her. She woke back up when the glass coffin was dropped and a piece of the poison apple was dislodged from her throat, then and only then, when it was completely legal, did the prince kiss her, though he had just bought her to put on display (not kidding the seven dwarfs sold the corpse). Next year two Snow White live action adaptions are coming out, one’s a comedy and then the others your typical Hollywood dark remake.
The first to hit cinemas is Mirror Mirror, starring Lily Collins, which comes out in March 2012. It’s a light hearted, almost parody, of the fairy tale. In it, Snow White is banished into the forest were she meets the seven dwarfs. She then leads them in a fight against the men sent by the evil queen. One of these men is the prince, who Snow White had fallen in love with, but he’s under a spell.
It seems to be the same basic story as the fairy tale with a bit of comedy thrown in. This version is the lighter of the two and is aimed more towards children and teen girls. It looks extremely over the top and stylised, yet somehow cheap at the same time. Most of it the scenery just looks like a movie set, which obviously it is. Julia Roberts’ character seems to make jokes that are more for the older audience, but it really just comes off as a bad Shrek rip-off.
The second film will be released in June 2012 and is titled Snow White and the Huntsman. This one is significantly darker than the other and is reminiscent of Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, which may be because it has the same producers. In this story Snow White teams up with the Huntsman to defeat the queen. It’s a unique twist on the tail, but maybe they’ve twisted it too much. I’m all for dark remakes, but they have to make sense. What exactly does this have to do with Snow White?
Lack of faith to the source material aside, this is the version that is more likely to get me into the cinema as it’s definitely aimed at an older, probably male, audience, though Twilight fans will no doubt also go see it. In my opinion, this is by far the better of the two and I’d be surprised if it doesn’t prove more popular than the former.
What do you think? Which one would you prefer to see? Do you think the story needed updating? Would you ever put a dead person on display? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe/follow and click the like button.
In a town were dancing is against the law, the teenagers fight for their right to boogie.
The 1984 hit film Footloose is being remade and brought to the next generation. The film is set in the fictional town of Bomont and will star Kenny Wormald as Ren McCormack, played by Kevin Bacon in the original, and Julianne Hough as Ariel, originally played by Lori Singer.
Bomont is an uptight old-fashioned town were, after five teens die in a car accident coming home from a dance, a law was passed to stop minors dancing in public (seems like they probably should have just banned driving, but that would be ridiculous). Then a city kid called Ren, moves to town and rebels against the law. Ironically the town were dancing is illegal is also the home of some really skilled dancers, like no way they got that good without practice.
The trailer was good, but will modern audiences be able to take the plot serious? There’s one part were, in court, Ren says ‘there was once a time for that law, but not anymore’, the law forbidding public dancing was only passed three years before Ren moved to Bomont, that’s not a lot of time for the law to go from necessary to unnecessary. Then again, the law was completely crazy to begin with, or was it? The whole idea of a town that banned dancing wasn’t made up. The inspiration came from a Elmore City, a place in America were dancing was banned until 1980. However, in reality the ban was put in place in the late 1800s, which is a little more believable than 2008.
As far as dance movies go, it seems pretty good and, though the cast look too old to be effected by the no minors dancing in public law, the characters seem believable. It should also be noted that, despite it now being a classic, the original Footloose got really bad reviews, makes me wonder if this one will do any better. Maybe the modern setting and music will help the story. Speaking of music, the trailer plays a number of songs; some are reminiscent of the Step Up movies, while others are more country. The trailer itself gives the same impression; Step Up with a country edge.
We won’t really now if it’s good or not until the movie comes out on the 14th of October, but what do you think? Did you like the original? Are you looking forward to seeing a modern version? Do you hate dance movies? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below. Also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
You may have heard the saying; time is money. Well in the upcoming film In Time, starring Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried, this is literally the case.
In the film, scientists have successfully stopped the aging process, which inevitably lead to overpopulation. To counter this they decided to make time, how long you have left to live, currency. Everyone ages until 25, then they must survive on time that they earn through work. This leads to the rich living forever, while the poor must fight to survive.
Will Salas, played by Justin Timberlake, is a 28 year old who is struggling to get by. He rarely has more than a few days. Then he meets Henry, Matt Bomer, a rich man who is tired of living. Henry transfers most of his time to Will, then leaves to die. Unfortunately, this act of kindness leads to Will having to go on the run from a police force known as the Timekeepers, who think that he murdered Henry.
The trailer does a great job of explaining the story. It gives a really clear idea of the movie will be like, which is good because it means that people going to see it will be the type of people who enjoy action/sci-fi films. It’s obvious that the film is making a comment on the gap between the rich and the poor in society. This is something a lot of people can relate to, especially in the recession (that’s right I said recession everybody that a drink).
Not many digital effects were shown on the trailer. All the characters have timers on their arms telling them how much time they have left, but that’s about it. This is unusual because it’s set in the future, which normally means plenty of CGI. There could be a lot more CGI in the actually movie, but keeping it to a minimum would be refreshing. After all, the story really doesn’t require that much, the dialogue should help establish the futuristic setting.
Though the rules of this futuristic world are outlined, they are not explained entirely. For example; if someone under 25 wants to buy something how can they? Time is currency and you are guaranteed not to die (by running out of time) before you’re 25. I expect this, and any other questions, will be answered in the film, but it may not be. You never know.
In Time comes out on the 28th of October in the US and the 1st of November in the UK and Ireland. Personally, I’m excited about this movie, but what do you think? Do you like the trailer? Is the story interesting? Do you think it’s strange that most of the actors aren’t 25? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below, also don’t forget to subscribe and click the like button.
Could finding a cure for Alzheimer’s bring on an ape rebellion? According to the latest Planet of the Apes film, the answer is yes, which is unfortunate but what can you do.
The Planet of the Apes started as a book and was then made into a film, in 1968. This movie spawned four sequels and a TV series and was then remade in 2001. The remake, though being closer to the original book, was negatively received, mainly due to the confusing ending. Now in 2011, another attempt at rebooting the series has been made, but is Rise of the Planet of the Apes the start of something great or another mistake?
James Franco plays a scientist who is trying to find a cure for Alzheimer’s to bring his father back. His research is sent back from the animal testing phase when one of the apes goes on a rampage, which he discovers was due to the fact she thought they were going to hurt her baby. Noticing the baby chimp, Caesar, has inherited the treatment genetically from its mother, Will, Franco’s character, takes him home and raises him. He also begins secretly testing the medication on his father. After an incident, Caesar is taking from Will and put in a refuge. Here he is mistreated by humans and begins to plot a rising, with the aid of Will’s Alzheimer’s medication.
As a fan of the original series, I was worried about the computer generated apes. This is the first Planet of the Apes film that hasn’t used people in ape costumes. There were times when I thought the apes didn’t look like apes, but they always fit in with the environment and looked like they were actually there, so for that reason I’m going to call it a success. Caesar’s movements were done by Andy Serkis, who also played Gollum in The Lord of the Rings. Serkis did a great job, the movements were very realistic, much more than that of apes in the previous films. It’s hard to empathise with a character that can’t speak, but the facial expressions and eyes do a wonderful job and it’s easy to feel for Caesar. In fact, they are so good that it’s sometimes depressing to watch.
Many of the themes in the film are going to put you in a downer; animal research, animal abuse, Alzheimer’s, loss, etc. Not exactly a feel good film, but it does have plenty of heart and will have you rooting against mankind. If you’re a fan of the originals you should be able to spot some links to the old films, the line ‘get you’re hand off me you damn dirty ape’ for example. Remember, this is not a prequel it’s a reboot, so don’t expect it to match up, it doesn’t. However, they already have plans to make sequels to this movie and hopefully they bring in some more aspects from the original series. An interesting idea I read, that I hope is put in a future installment, is to show the apes destroy the Statue of Liberty. If you’re looking for a movie with a good story and a lot of heart then this is the film for you, but if you want a feel good film then avoid this at all costs.
What do you think? Have you seen the film? Do you like the CGI apes? Let me know by voting and leaving a comment below.