A Heroes Movie

Is unnecessary. Heroes is already better than a movie. Even the lesser episodes have still seemed as good as made-for-TV films. And the best episodes are like million-dollar blockbusters. Simply amazing.

If you string all the episodes together from seasons 1 and 2, you've got a huge feature film. Or two. Or 10. I think "Heroes" is made in such a way that you can't make a movie out of it. It's almost like a film version is a step down.

I think this is because the show is so good, and has its timing down to a science. It needs more hours than a movie can contain to show you all the interweaving plots. It needs to allow the story to unfold at a certain rate, urgent, but at the same time relaxed.

I think a film would strike that relaxed part in order to prevent a 3 hour film that would drive audiences away. The urgency would then be heightened, and there'd be more action than plot.

Part of what makes "Heroes" so great is the ideas behind the actions. The mystery, the intrigue, and the situational and character backgrounds are all major factors in the show's excellence. I don't see how a film version could compete with that. And thankfully, at this point, there's no need for one to.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Batman Begins

This is an awesome film. It's well-made, the music is great, and it revived the "Batman" franchise. Not that I care in a business sense. But for a while the movies were kind of lame.

It's like each new "Batman" film got softer and softer, until someone came along and made a new one exceedingly sharp.

It's got good lessons, great ideas, and realistic technology. Even the storyline is believable to a decent extent. And the actors are all superb.

Hopefully the new one will be more of the same.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Epic Movie

I must say I was disappointed by this film. It's not that it was bad, it's just I expected a lot more. I thought it would adhere to the high quality of movies like Scary Movie 3 and 4. Sure, those two had some lowbrow humor, but there was a lot of stuff that was pretty witty.

Most of "Epic Movie" was lowbrow. Though there were a lot of parodies, some just didn't fit. It's like they thought cramming as many movie references into a film was a guarantee for success.

I also didn't like how the girl with the memory from "Heroes," the waitress Hiro loved, played a nitwit. I'm sure she must have been referencing something I hadn't picked up in "The Da Vinci Code," like maybe how the female lead repeated things (I never noticed that she did), but it just made her (and the film, by proxy) seem lame.

There were also some parts that seemed designed to be funny in a gross way, but just came off as purely disgusting.

However, if you liked "Date Movie," you might enjoy "Epic Movie."

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Timecop

This is a pretty neat film. It's packed with action, suspense, and the implications of altering history really make you think.

One thing that stuck with me was the ending. Our hero started out alone as a timecop, no wife, no son. Then he goes back in time, saves his wife, and returns to the present. The present is now altered, and for the first time he meets the son he never new. But here's the tricky part -- the son recognizes him.

Apparently, according to "Timecop," if you go back in time and change things, you return to the changed present. So the wife and son are used to one version of him, but now they're stuck with a completely different version.

If one incident in the past that is fixed causes a new version of Van Damme (the fixer) to take over, who's to say another disaster won't happen? Van Damme saved his wife and son one night, but what if the next night new bad guys got her? Then a new wifeless Van Damme would have to come back and fix that, after which point he'd take over for the original Van Damme that made it to the end of the movie.

This could go on and on. What if suddenly an eye patch-wearing Van Damme shows up?

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

AMC "Future of Classic"

There's a post on Random Waves of Insight about the mystery behind AMC's slogan. In AMC: What Does "Future Of Classic" Mean?, all the possible avenues of "Future of Classic" and its true meaning are explored.

I for one do find it mildly confusing. If something is already classic, why bother bringing the future into it? It's not like a finely aged wine needs more aging!

Maybe AMC is trying to say, "We are the Future of Classic, and in the Future, all things Classic will have been judged so on our terms alone. For we are redefining Classic with our lineup. Therefore, whatever we broadcast is good, and should be watched." So in the future, someone will ask, "What's a good classic movie?" And someone will respond, "Let's check the 2007 lineup from AMC. They redefined the word classic that year, as it pertains to films."

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

The Hulk

This was on the other day, and I felt that enough time had passed since society dismissed it as unworthy. Watching it again, I noticed how the font for some captions looked similar to the font used in the show "Heroes." That was neat. It's like the film was a precursor of sorts.

I enjoyed seeing things in a fresh, uncontaminated way. The last time I had watched "Hulk," there was a lot of talk that it wasn't that great. This time around it wasn't bad at all. I enjoyed the Hulk character more than the human version, though.

The guy playing him didn't seem super tough when angry. He seemed more tough when passive aggressive, when cool and laid back. But then he'd snarl, and his youthful look would combine with that to present the appearance of an angry child. It was weird.

I enjoyed the military's quest to hunt him down, and his incredible abilities when transformed. I didn't like the pain of it all, and how he felt his condition was ripping his life apart. I know it was, but it seemed like he was a little over-the-top with the lamentations, despite the fact that they didn't seem to be given much screen time.

Overall, I'd say the film could be better, but in the end it isn't that bad.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.

Stargate (with Kurt Russell)

I used to watch the "Stargate" show, and I had just recently been thinking about a behind-the-scenes moment I had watched where Kurt Russell stopped by the set of the show and exchanged remarks with Richard Dean Anderson. Both played the same character (Col. Jonathan 'Jack' O'Neil) via two different mediums.

To my surprise, the film was on today, and I was able to watch a good portion. Man, it really brings to you the awe and wonder of making contact with another planet, another people, and powerful, ancient technology.

I was amused by how easily Dr. Daniel Jackson powered through the tasks to decode and decipher all the information the government had gathered so far. They kept having to ramp up his clearance. It's like he was playing through a video game he had just beaten for the eleventh time, and the game had forgotten how good he was. "What? Ok, you graduate to Level 2. What? You're that good? Ok, you get new armor. What??! Ok, secret mission!"

I also enjoyed how the film has a slightly different take on things, and how it tells the same story the show does, but in a more cinematic way (of course!).

It's almost like the show came out, and then the movie, which was done very well on one highly focused area. The show has covered so much, so it was neat to see how things all began.

If you enjoyed this post, please think about becoming a subscriber to my RSS feed.