411 Fact or Fiction Movies/TV 2.10.12: Week 317 - The Phantom Menace in 3-D, a Jackie Brown Prequel, More

Posted by Ben Piper on 02.10.2012

Are people going to go check out Star Wars Episode I in 3-D? Will Safe House be a kick-ass movie? Would folks be interested in a Jackie Brown prequel? 411's Rick Tym and Matt Arena debate these topics and more in this week's 411 Fact or Fiction: Movies/TV!



Hey there. Fact or Fiction time. Coming in from the cold is my good friend Rick Tym, who will be going against Matt Arena this week. Game on!



1. The tandem of Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds will help elevate Safe House to be a kickass action movie.

Matt Arena:Fiction. The first line of the trailer say it all, "he was one of the most brilliant CIA operatives we ever had...until he went ROGUE." Dun dun dunnnnnnn! It's so cliche you probably think I'm joking. Sadly I'm not. The entire trailer is filled with similar action movie cliches. How many times has this plot been done? The whole "grizzled vet teaches newbie, only to reveal....it's all a set up" thing is nothing new. Denzel Washington lost his magic ability to pull mediocre movies into greatness. Don't believe me? Watch Unstoppable. And Ryan Reynolds doesn't help either. I like the guy, thought he was brilliant in The Nines, but bland action movies like this won't really help raise his stock much in my eyes. Especially after the whole Green Lantern debacle. Putting good actors in boring genre films doesn't make them great movies. This will prove to be just another run-of-the-mill action movie that everyone will forget 30 minutes after walking out of the theater. Does anybody remember Body of Lies? Exactly.

Rick Tym: Fact. Okay, maybe it won't be a "kickass action movie" but it should be pretty fun nonetheless. Listen, I always like it when Denzel brings the crazy, and his shifty eyes and demeanor evident in the trailers promise some excitement. I've always liked Ryan Reynolds (sure, he's had some misfires, but surely we can all forgive the whole Green Lantern thing, which suffered more from a poor script than his acting) and think that he and Denzel should play rather well off each other. I know that the whole rogue operative thing has been done a million times before, but any concept, including a genre film, can bring enjoyment to the masses when executed effectively. Weren't Ethan Hunt and his team in Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol rogue operatives (hence the, you know, "ghost protocol?") I thought that was a pretty good "genre" film.

Score: 0 for 1

2. Harrison Ford starring in Blade Runner 2 with Ridley Scott directing is something you're excited for.

Matt Arena:Fiction. I say that hesitantly. If a Blade Runner 2 HAS to be made, I guess having Ridley and Ford involved is the best possible scenario. But I don't see why this movie should be made. Is there a story Ridley Scott has been itching to tell for 30 years? Unlikely. Even more unlikely that said story will live up to the legendary film that is Blade Runner. That film has been said to be the greatest sci-fi movie ever made. Though I'd argue that, it's still one of the best ever and following that up is damn near impossible. It's always a risky move to do another film for an iconic movie years and years down the line. It would be like if Kubrick did The Shining 2. No. Just leave the first one alone in its greatness and don't sully the reputation it has. Do you realize the expectations that are inherent in a Blade Runner sequel? It would be like if someone re-vistited Star Wars 20 years after....oh wait. See? These things don't have a track record of panning out well. Obviously Lucas and Scott are two different filmmakers but the situation is the same. Why not just do something like Prometheus? It's far enough detached from the original to feel new, but we all know it's pretty much a sequel. Regardless, it's awesome to see Ridley Scott back in the sci-fi genre.

Rick Tym: Fiction. Harrison Ford isn't going to be in any new Blade Runner movie anyway. Reports out of the production company behind Blade Runner have indicated that the news of Ford resurrecting his role in a Ridley Scott sequel is unfounded or, at the very least, extremely, extremely premature. Above, Matt asked why Scott just doesn't pull a Prometheus and tell a related tale in the same film universe. Well, my money's on that happening if a sequel comes to fruition.

Of course, as an unabashed Blade Runner fan any news of a sequel/prequel/parallel-quel (?) has me saying "Yes, please" especially when Ridley Scott is involved. I am very, very excited for Prometheus and believe that Scott will be vindicated in his return to sci-fi, even if it's not a true Alien tale as many had originally hoped for. (The coolest part about that? I think people are now more pumped that it's not a direct prequel. Will there be xenomorphs, maybe like right at the end? Well…probably, but that's just icing on what looks to be a moist and tasty cake.) The same would happen if he decided to revisit 2019 (or beyond) Los Angeles or take us to the off-world colonies.

But I do not believe that Ridley + Harrison is the "best possible scenario" for a new Blade Runner flick. If anything, I think it's the worst. One of the most enduring aspects of Blade Runner is the seemingly eternal debate of Deckard: Human or Replicant? If you bring Ford back, you either (a) allow him to show his age, which means he's human or (b) digitally alter his appearance ala the Dude in Tron: Legacy, which means he's a Replicant. (And creepily emotionless, which doesn't really fit with the Tyrell motto of "more human than human.") Either way, those of us that still like to interpret the film for ourselves (and don't stand up on high with a copy of the director's commentary screaming "Ridley says he's a Replicant! It must be so!") will lose. So while I will welcome Ridley Scott back to the Blade Runner world, I also request that Harrison Ford bypass this one and report to Lot C, where filming on Indiana Jones and the (Insert Macguffin Here)) will begin filming shortly.

Score: 1 for 2

3. You have no intention of giving George Lucas more money by seeing The Phantom Menace in 3-D.

Matt Arena:Fact. Why would I? Episode 1 was atrocious. Though I'm tempted to go on a rant on how bad Episode 1 and all the subsequent prequels were, there isn't much to say that hasn't already been said on that matter. But what I will say is how annoying and lazy it is for studios to re-release old movies, make them 3D, and then bathe in the piles of cash that follows. First The Lion King, then Beauty and the Beast, now Star Wars. Do you know how intimidating it is for new films to have to open alongside STAR WARS? And it's a slap in the face to audiences. Come up with a new idea instead of re-releasing your old movies. That being said, if Jurassic Park got a theatrical re-release I'd be there in an instant. So I'm a giant hypocrite. But come on, it's Episode 1. Do not give this film your money again. Seeing Jar-Jar's tongue in 3D can't be that attractive of an option. There are far better films out there that deserve the cash, *cough*CHRONICLE*cough*. What's the saying? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

Rick Tym: Fact. But only because I have other things to spend my money on (for instance, I do want to see Chronicle). I personally have no problem with rereleasing any movie, 3D or not. Small independent cinemas do this all the time and it's considered a great opportunity to catch a beloved property on the big screen, the way it was meant to be seen. So why is there a problem with bringing such events to wider audiences? 3D doesn't chafe my unmentionables either, because it can actually be fun (while I'm not going to pony up the dough for Episode I, I might catch Eps. IV through VI and perhaps even Revenge of the Sith when they come back to the theater in 3D) if applied properly to the right property.

And while I know it's a cash grab, I actually like the idea of movies such as The Lion King and Beauty and the Beast being brought back to the theaters (once again, 3D or not). I've got children at home that love these movies, but are still a little bit too young to take to the theater; their limited attention spans would likely make for some rough movie-going experiences, candy and popcorn bribes or not. However, when they get older I would love to be able to take them to see one of their favorites like Finding Nemo on the big screen. It would be a great experience well worth the money to me, and if it wasn't, well…I just wouldn't spend the money.

Score: 2 for 3

Switch!!!



4. Journey 2: The Mysterious Island will not be very good.

Rick Tym: Fact. I have no real interest in seeing it, anyway. Sure, it might be good for the kiddies, but I've got a feeling that even the great Dwayne Johnson can't really elevate Journey above mediocrity. That's doesn't mean it won't do good numbers at the box office, though. The Rock has a knack for picking the safe family movies that somehow turn a (sometimes sizable) profit. If my kids are interested we'll rent it, but unlike some family fare (see my references to Disney movies above) I don't think this one will manage to hold my attention. But if it can entertain my kids? That's good enough, so thanks Dwayne, and I'll see you in G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Matt Arena: Fact. It won't be any good. It'll be another corny kid's movie with The Rock. But this time in 3D! The trailer really says it all. If you find berries jumping off The Rock's man boob from the screen into your face funny, then this movie is for you. Sadly, I've seen the first one and this doesn't look to be any different. Clearly it's not for me, and I find it hard to think that a kid's action movie going up against The Phantom Menace will do all that well. Then again the Rock's made a career on these schlocky kiddie movies so I guess somebody's digging them.

Score: 3 for 4

5. Darren Aronofsky teaming with Russell Crowe to make a big screen biblical epic of Noah is an idea you can get behind.

Rick Tym: Fact. The biblical story of Noah as interpreted as Aronofsky is definitely something I can get behind. In fact, I'm already salivating a little bit thinking about the epic world he would create bringing this tale to the big screen. There are a lot of possibilities to explore; for instance, will it be a somewhat straightforward interpretation or will it concern itself with the ramifications of a guy building a big boat to house pairs of animals, all the while ignoring his buddies who think he's batshit crazy? Will Noah struggle with the voices he hears, wondering if it really is God speaking to him or pondering that he might be, you know, batshit crazy? (I guess you can tell I'm hoping for a bit of the nontraditional when it comes to this adaptation.) No matter what way he spins it, Aronofsky has certainly earned my cinematic trust. And Crowe is a great pick for the lead; with his considerable talents and the fact that he's getting a little older, he should bring the necessary gravitas (and perhaps a bit of the batshit crazy, if the script warrants it) to the part.

Matt Arena: Fact. Darren Aronofsky. Russell Crowe. Need I say more? Ok. Biblical epic. Aronofsky has gotten better with each film, and even though I was nearly peeing myself with nerd glee at the thought of him behind the new Wolverine movie, I'm sure this will be rather awesome too. You know he's got to have some kind of weird take on the entire thing. And when you think about it, it's a crazy story as is. This dude is building a box to put animals in. Nobody believes him and think he's crazy. Add to that Aronofsky's touch and Russell Crowe as Noah? COME ON. There's no doubt an even weirder angle he's working out in his head. It'll piss off a lot of people for sure, which makes me want it to happen even more.

Score: 4 for 5

6. You'd love to see a Jackie Brown prequel that follows the actions of the Ordell Robbie and Louis Gara characters.

Rick Tym Fact. I will admit that one thing that would make the idea of adapting Switch better would be if it was Tarantino doing the adapting. Some people might call Jackie Brown underrated but I think that time has shown it to be one of Tarantino's stronger films, and part of that has to do with Elmore Leonard's source material, which is just as strong here for this prequel. The casting also looks to be spot on; John Hawkes (who was fantastic in Winter's Bone) looks like a younger DeNiro/Louis Gara, and Mos Def is cast in a similar vein as the younger Ordell Robbie. For fans, this should be a great treat to see the evolution of these characters; now we can see how they became batshit crazy (sorry, couldn't resist). The fact that Leonard himself blessed the unapproved script (written without formal permission by writer-director Dan Schechter) seems to indicate that we're in for a solid outing.

Matt Arena: Fiction. My same feelings about a Blade Runner 2 apply here. I really don't like the idea of going back and doing a sequel/prequel/whatever to a really great movie 10+ years down the line. I don't like the idea of a Vega Brothers movie, nor do I like the idea of a Jackie Brown prequel. Call me cynical, but I learned all I needed to from the Star Wars prequels. These things rarely work out well and it's almost always better for directors to just leave them be. Also this is Tarantino we're talking about. He's in the middle of Django Unchained, talked about a Vega Brother movies, Kill Bill 3, and another entry in the Inglorious Basterds universe. Rumors of QT spinoffs are nothing new and they rarely ever happen.

Final Score: 4 for 6

And there you have it. Rick and Matt agree more often than not. Thanks to them both for playing, and see all of you again next week!
-BP

TWITTER

http://www.twitter.com/411s_Ben_Piper
http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411mma