411 Fact or Fiction Movies 06.06.08: Week 129

Posted by Ben Piper on 06.06.2008

Will Kung Fu Panda achieve bigger success than Pixar's Wall-E? Will Zohan be a superior comic vehicle for Adam Sandler than his most recent efforts? Does Brett Ratner and Eddie Murphy teaming for Beverly Hills Cop 4 equate a bad movie waiting to happen? 411's Jordan Bruns and Al Norton debate these and other topics in week 129 of 411 Fact or Fiction: Movies!



Greetings and salutations! Welcome back once again to the only weekly column to guaranteed to generate controversy and endless debate, Fact or Fiction. This week Two Tivos master Al Norton matches wits with the last in a long line of newcomers to the column, Jordan Bruns. He's a movie geek prone to mad ramblings. Anyways, let's see what these upstanding fine gentlemen have to say for themselves…

1. Based upon what you've seen thus far, you anticipate that You Don't Mess With The Zohan will be a far superior comic vehicle for Adam Sandler than many of his most recent offerings.

Jordan Bruns: Fiction. I think his last two comic offerings, Click and I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry contained the typical "Sandler Humor" but also showed maturity and depth. Sandler seems to have outgrown the imbecilic man-child roles he played early in his career. And Reign Over Me showed that he can handle dramatic roles. If anything You Don't Mess With The Zohan looks to be a throwback to the early Sandler. The plot involves an Israeli intelligence official who fakes his death and becomes a hairstylist in New York City. That being said, it looks like it'll be more Little Nicky than Anger Management or Punch Drunk Love. I'm not saying I think it's going to be a terrible movie, but it should be pretty much what audiences expect an Adam Sandler movie to be.

Al Norton: Fact. I am going by the letter of the law here, and the statement was that this would be a "far superior comedic vehicle", and I don't see how this isn't significantly funnier than Chuck and Larry and Click. The ads looks funny enough, and while I am not a huge fan of when Sandler does "characters", there will be a huge number of men looking for some sort of comedy payback from being forced to see Sex And The City with their girlfriends/wives. In some ways this looks to be a step back from Sandler's development as an actor but movies are a business and Silly Adam usually sells pretty well.

Score: 0 for 1

2. You believe in the old wive's tale that celebrity deaths occur in cluster's of 3.

Jordan Bruns: Fiction. It's an interesting concept but there is no real method to determine whether it's true. In just the last month, we've lost Eddy Arnold (May 8), Sydney Pollack (May 26) and Harvey Korman (May 29). However, Charlton Heston died in April, so technically that's four. And that's not counting any obscure names or up-and-comers who might have died recently. An example of this is Rob Knox, the 18-year-old English actor who was stabbed to death on May 24. Knox had recently finished his work on the upcoming Harry Potter movie, which was his first big screen role. Major celebrity deaths happen in one-two combos more often than they happen in groups of three. Elvis Presley and Grouch Marx died three days apart, John Ritter and Johnny Cash, one day apart, and Jim Henson and Sammy Davis Jr. on the same day. The "trend" of celebrity deaths ocurring in threes is just what it says above, an old wive's tale.

Al Norton: Fiction. Is this really a F or F question? We could be debating the merits of Megan Fox vs. those of Sofia Vergara, if Ice Road Truckers is better than Deadliest Catch, what farm animals Jim Belushi must have pictures of ABC executives having sex with to get yet another season of According to Jim on the air, or if Denny Crane will be remembered as a better character than James T Kirk, and yet we are left to talk about if celebrities die in threes? Sure they do, if you make the sampling periods big enough, or if you really broaden your definition of "celebrity", but I'd rather talk about last Thursday's finale of Lost. For the record, my answers are Vergara, Ice Road Truckers, goats, and Denny Crane.

Score: 1 for 2

3. Brett Ratner + Eddie Murphy x Beverly Hills Cop 4 = a really bad movie waiting to happen.

Jordan Bruns: Fact. I want this movie to work so bad but I can think of a million reasons why it's going to be a trainwreck. For one, the third BHC alienated a lot of fans who might say "to hell with it" and stay away from a fourth installment. Secondly, Brett Ratner's not as hot as he used to be. X-Men: Last Stand was a horrible conclusion to an otherwise impressive franchise, and Rush Hour 3 was unable to match the box office success of either of its predecessors. Despite Murphy's claims to return the edginess to the Axel Foley character, I have a feeling Paramount will demand a PG-13 rating, meaning Foley will be toned down even more than he was in number three. We got a PG-13 John McClane last summer. We don't need a PG-13 Axel Foley as well. Finally, much of the core cast was absent from the third installment, and the movie suffered as a result. It will be very difficult to recreate the magic of the first Beverly Hills Cop without the characters and onscreen chemistry that made it so popular. It's unlikely we'll see Ronny Cox or John Ashton in this one either. Cox is 70 years old and Ashton, as far as I know, declined to be involved in the last one, making his participation in a fourth movie all the more unlikely. Even if they get Paul Reiser or Bronson Pinchot to cameo, it won't be the same. It's also unknown if Judge Reinhold will be back. I hate to say it but this project has Disaster written all over it.

Al Norton: Fact. Although I am not sure any director could make this work. Part of Axel Foley's appeal is that he was this rare combination of an authority figure (a cop) who was anti-authority; how do they play that out with Eddie Murphy being 47 years old? Are they going to pair him up with a younger cop, with the comedy coming from Axel dealing with a younger version of himself? Actually, that's probably not a bad idea. Having just seen the new Indiana Jones movie, which suffered from a script that seemed like it was written by people sitting around trying to come up with "good Indiana Jones lines", I feel like this project will end up being less about originality and more about trying to hit the same notes as the first two. I agree with Jordan about this needing to be a Rated R movie but I am not convinced the majority of the film going audience really cares much about getting the whole band back together. I am, however, 100% sure that Judge Reinhold and Bronson Pinchot will be available. This is a movie that will be sold by the trailer; if it looks funny and action packed, and features the familiar notes of The Neutron Dance, it will be a hit, and if it looks like Murphy trying to re-live his glory days at the expense of your wallet, it will fail.

Score: 2 for 3

Switch!!!

4. You plan on becoming a regular viewer of USA Network's new series In Plain Sight.

Al Norton: Fact. I have seen the first four episodes of the show and am really enjoying it, especially that it seems to be a straight drama with some comedic elements, as opposed to much of USA's original programming; Monk and PSYCH lean more on the funny side, which is good but In Plain Sight and Burn Notice mix it up a bit, each in their own way. Mary McCormack's role is usually one played by a man and she and the IPS writers look very good in comparison to the in-your-face, over-the-dopiness that weighs down Holly Hunter and Saving Grace; she seems much more like a real person and less like a writer's creation. The always fantastic Dave Foley guests in the next couple of weeks (not sure what order they are showing the episodes), and he alone is worth the price of admission. The show is not without fault - Mary's mom and sister seem to exist simply to be flakey and to show that large breasts are hereditary - but McCormack does most of the heavy lifting here and does it quite well.

Jordan Bruns: Fiction. Not that I'll totally avoid the show, actually the premise sounds quite interesting. I just think it's premature to say that I'll watch every episode of a show that hasn't established itself yet. Very few weekly TV shows "hook" me from the first episode (Heroes and The Sopranos are exceptions). Even with Buffy it took a few episodes before I jumped on the bandwagon. I think My Name is Earl is hilarious, but I only catch it sporadically. I'm a movie lover first and foremost, so that leaves little time for weekly TV fixes. Nevertheless, although I missed the first episode of In Plain Sight, given the amount of buzz surrounding it, I'll check out the next one. But like I said before, it's too soon to make a total commitment.

Score: 2 for 4

5. You could care less that The Mole is returning to TV.

Al Norton: Fact. I actually couldn't care less, meaning I have no feelings on the subject, but I know what you were going for. Wow, am I catty this week or what? Anyway, I have friends who tell me how great the show was/is, at least in it's non-celebrity editions, and there is nothing about it that seems to contribute to the dumbing down of America, which is more than I can say about much of reality TV, but there is also nothing compelling about this show to me. Reality shows I do care about that have just returned to the airwaves include FX's 30 Days (aka the best non-fiction show on TV) and Fox Reality's The Academy. Sorry, couldn't resist giving these quality shows some cheap plugs!

Jordan Bruns: Fact. Reality shows are really hurting television. I think a lot of people were actually happy when the writers went on strike last fall because it meant they got to see even more intellectually devoid garbage like this. I'll admit to watching the audition phase of American Idol, but only because I love seeing talentless twits insulted by the acid tongue of Simon Cowell. Beyond that, I generally shy away from reality TV.

Score:3 for 5

6. You fully expect Kung Fu Panda to give Pixar's Wall-E a run for it's money not only in terms of box office success but overall quality as well.

Al Norton: Fact. Kung Fu Panda's trailer definitely gets a louder reaction from the audiences I have seen it with, and Wall-E looks like it might work better as a short than a full length movie. Even my wife, not a Jack Black fan at all, laughed out loud at the ads, and her reaction to Wall-E was more of a "hmmm." I don't mean to say she speaks for the entire film going world but her take mixed with mine certainly covers a lot of bases. I actually don't think this will be a close box office fight at all - KFP will dominate - so the question will be more of artistic success. I think it's great that we have two such fun looking movies coming out at the same time of year - says a lot about the overall quality of animated films right now.

Jordan Bruns: Fact. I give WALL-E the edge in terms of state-of-the-art animation and sound effects, because legendary sound designer Ben Burtt created most of the voices. After all, this is the man who created R2D2's bleeps, Chewbacca's howls and Darth Vader's breathing, not to mention the sound of a freshly ignited lightsaber blade. Sorry, my inner nerd took over for a minute... But I think Kung Fu Panda will be the bigger moneymaker and superior film as well. Having voice work by Jack Black, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, and Seth Rogen, to name a few, is sure to draw audiences in. Plus, it looks like an animated film that can appeal to all audiences, not just children. WALL-E seems aimed mostly at people who think talking robots are cute. Also, coming out three weeks before WALL-E means that Kung Fu Panda will get the largest wave of moviegoers who want a break from the typical summer blockbusters. It'll be an interesting battle at the box office, but I predict the panda will emerge victorious.

Final Score: 4 for 6

There you have it. Jordan and Al agree more than not. Thanks to them both for taking part, and thanks to all of you for clicking the link and enjoying.

See you next week!
-BP