Jump to content


Old Guard
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by norse_sage

  1. No Bruce Campbell??? God dammit. Ideally, Perlman would be Orlock with Bruce sticking around as Elvis. Now that would have been something!
  2. I vastly preferred the novel "Angels & Demons" to the novel "The Da Vinci" code. From the looks of it, "Angels & Demons" the movie looks set to be even better compared to "The Da Vinci code" movie than their novel counterparts. While I still think Tom Hanks is miscast as hell as Langdon, I'm looking somehwat forward to this. Should be cool seeing The Big Bang effects, for those who know the novel.
  3. I was very happy with the prospect of a HBO Preacher series, I think that is the best we could have possibly hoped for as far as doing the Preacher justice goes. While I am thrilled about Sam Mendes directing, I do have two major concerns reltated to the movie format, regardless of director. 1. No way you can cram the entire Preacher saga into a two hour a movie, you need at least a trilogy do it somewhat justice, and even that is cutting short. I hope Sam Mendes is already aware of this, and planning to shoot three movies at once, LOTR style. 2. Controversial content. I love it to bits, but I suspect the Christian Taliban are going to go even more nuts than they did with The Golden Compass once they learn what the movie is really about. I fear it will be watered down immensely to satisfy the fundamentalist protestors. The previous movie adapation, set to be directed by Rachel Talalay and star James Marsden, was heavily rumoured to be PG-13 nan d have anything that could offend taken out…thank god that abomination never saw the light of day. Now bring one Lance Henriksen for The Saint of Killers!
  4. The last 30 seconds of that Rob Zombie are pretty cool, but beyond that...it fucking sucked! Of all the other soundtrack samples, Ramallah were largely the only ones I thought were pretty good. In other words, the soundtrack is shaping up to be pretty much as expected - mediocre. But I'm more interested in the score.
  5. Certainly a cool cast so far, will be interesting to see how this pans out.
  6. I have every faith in Malmberg and Sederwsky of Paradox. They're both good guys, and their love for all things REH is without limits. The REH library could not be in better hands than Paradox. I respect them from taking Conan away from both Warner and New Line, the movie is being developed at Nu Image primarily becuase there Malmberg gets the creative freedom he needs. But if this thing with Ratner pans out...I hope they know what they are doing. I hope they see some potential there that I don't. I don't blame Ratner for X3, that's fox and Tim fucking bastard Rothman all the way. Ratner did a great job with the resources and time at hand. I also rather liked his work on "Red Dragon". Beyond that, he's never impressed me, quite the contrary. I'd prefer someone from the far left field than him. But if Malmberg and Sederwosky agrees with his vision...I hope they know what they're doing.
  7. I saw this movie on Friday - knowing it was amde by Fox, I fully expcected it to be crap, but I at least hoped it would be entertaining. It wasn't. It is actually the second worst movie I've seen all year, second only to 10,000 BC. Such a shame, what a wasted opportunity. Wahlberg is awesome, and they could have made such a kick ass movie with the greatest of ease. Damn, I hate Fox. To think they went from making great movies like Predator and Alien to sodomizing their properties, filmmakers and fans like they're doing right now. Damn you, Fox.
  8. That's great news, congrats Tim! Also, being a huge REH fan, I cannot wait to see the finished result. I like REH almost as much as I do Barker and Clarke. Incidentally, Malmberg and Sederowsky of Paradox are in the process of bringing several charathers to the big screen, I think the first one out will be "Solomon Kane", starring Jane's doppelganger from Rome...
  9. As far as I am concerened, there are two good songs on the soundtrack of the 2004 movie: "In time" and "Broken". Of the two, only "In time" actually enhanced rather than diminished the movie in my opinion. That is what I especially hated about the ending of the theatrical cut; fade out on the bridge, and immediatly cut to crap metal which makes my teeth hurt. (I blame the producers for that BTW, not Hensleigh) One of the MAJOR improvements in the extended cut was the "In time" outro and the new end credits. I think and hope the score in PWZ will be better than the one in the '04 movie, but as far as the soundtrack is concerened, I fully expect the worst.
  10. Nomad was kind enough to get one of these babies for me when she met Street at this years comic-con. I got it late last week, but due to work and travel the past few days, I didn't get to open it till today. It is stunning, fantastic quality and clear vibrant colours. I love it. It'll look great on my wall. After work today, I'm going to look for a suitable frame, and have a custom passepartout (sp?) made for it. It's going to look fantastic on my wall. Maybe I'll post a pic when it's ready. Truly marks the end of an era, the best Punisher era period. The new run looks promosing, but the Ennis/Bradstreet run will always be epocal to me. Thank You ever so much Nomad, and Thank You Tim. Hope to shake your hand one day. Maybe I'll be able to make the trip to San Diego come '09.
  11. I just heard some rumblings that PWZ won't be released in theaters over here till March. AAAAAAAARRRRGGGGHHHHHH!
  12. What I don't get is why is it even desirable with a PG-13 rating? Sure, if you stear clear of blood, butality, cussing, drug use and nudity, the MPAA might let even the darkest of subject matters fly. But what for? Why water it down to PG-13 if that can be avoided? Blood and guts alone don't make a movie, and are worthless without a good story. But given that a decent story is there, then I certainly feel cheated if the studio omits r-rated material that would emphasize the mood, tone and fit the individual scene. Cutting out those things for ratings purposes are what studio suits who only care about money, the quality of the final product be damned, do. Why would anyone not making a dime on the movie think like they do?
  13. You cannot have a PG-13 Punisher and remain somewhat true to the charather. The Punisher features fairly adult themes and storylines. They feature the dark side of society; drugs, trafficking, prostitution, organized crime and violence, all mixed in with a vigilante serial killer who takes the law in his own hands. I don't think this subject matter is fit for a PG-13 rating. One could of course make it PG-13 if one tried, but for what purpose? That would require such compromises to be made that it would no longer have the egde or impact it should have, thereby making a lesser movie. I'd rather they keep the budget to a minimum so it can be profitable even with the R-rating, rather than seeing more money poured into it on expense of the charathers integrity. The best way to make a PG-13 Punisher movie would probably be to ignore MAX, Marvel knights, and even a good chunk of the old school stories, and instead adapt the family friendly Matt Fraction penned War Journal Punisher. But since he sosializes with superheroes and seldom actually kills anyone, that is not what I personally consider a true representation of The Punisher - And certainly not anything I have any interest in seeing on film.
  14. There have been rumours of a new Heavy Metal movie for some time, spearheaded by David Fincher, for Paramount. Then Paramount turned it away on account of being "too risky" Well, it appears "Heavy Metal" is still happening, this time under Sony: http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews.php?id=7580 Awesome!
  15. While it should be obvious to everyone that I primarily blame Hensleigh for bringing his interpretation of the Punisher to life in a way far more respectful to the cinema of the seventies rather than the actual source material; a good chunk of the blame must also be placed on Marvel and Artisan too for allowing that particurlar script and direction to happen in the first place. Whenever something goes wring, it is seldom squarely one persons fault, but rather a chain of events and co-operation. I know that I'm being harsh in cristism of Hensleigh, however I would have been far more forgiving had he been responisble for either just the script or just the direction. But as it is, Hensleigh is the architect behind both, and so I hold him more responsible than I otherwise would have. From I gather from reading his draft of the script, hearing the DVD commentary (which is one amazing commentary track btw) and seeing the extended cut (why the fuck is this not on Blu-ray???), as well as reading TL's praise of him; I simply feel that his basic vision of the story fundamentally is not a Punisher story. Even if the studio had done everything in their power to make the movie he wanted rather than blocking him on so many things, I still think the movie would not have been entirely to my liking due to the many unnecessary changes made. Mind you, the movie would have been far more enjoyable had it been filmed exactly as it was written. I'd be perfectly happy with a four hour running time if that makes for a better movie. I have no problem seeing why Artisan greenlit his script, as it works pretty good as a standalone revenge movie script. But I have never understood how Marvel could approve of it, as they surely should have reacted to the many liberties taken with their characther. Someone should have put their foot down there and then. Now the Michael France script on the other hand... I remember reading it, and thinking "now this is the script they SHOULD have done". While the France draft had its issues too, it definately had more of a Punisher feel to it. I honestly think that if they had based the 2004 movie on the Michael France script and comissioned Hensleigh only to clean it up a bit, and locked, say, Walter Hill as a director; the finished movie would not only be a bigger hit with fans and general audiences alike, but spawn direct sequels and quite possibly be closer to the Punisher movie Jane wanted. I feel cheated.
  16. Due to my job being far more demanding than usual these days, I haven’t got all that much time to post at the moment, here or anywhere else. But given recent events, I think I’ll go from luring mode to posting mode… Tom Jane’s outline for the proverbial sequel to The Punisher (2004) was excellent, certainly a huge improvement over the previous movie. I particularly enjoyed the scene lifted from “Welcome back, Frank”, originally with Daredevil. That could have been cinematic gold. I would have loved to see that movie brought to life, and I regret that we won’t be able to see it. Thank you, LGF. Jane, I do hope that you will be able to make a movie like you had hoped for “The Punisher 2”, even if it carries another title. I also really appreciate the clarification of your departure, which I always respected, but now understand in a new way. That said, I am very exited about how PWZ is shaping up. I would have loved to see Jane’s vision for the Punisher brought too life, but even if it is very different, Lexi and Steve Gainer’s vision has me wildly exited too. My major concern at this point is how much LGF potentially could screw it over in post. As we’re taking about the origin here, I’ll just rehash what I wrote in an earlier post: What I disliked the most with Hensleigh’s vision of the Punisher, was his complete and total butchering of the origin. The rest I could tolerate, but not that. How it can be possible to fuck up something which should be so simple to put on screen is completely beyond me. Scrapping the Punisher’s proper origin in favour of putting a “Mad Max” reference or two in its place destroyed the movie for me, and in the process much of Frank Castle’s philosophical justification for becoming THE PUNISHER in the first place was taken away. The proper comic book (MAX or otherwise) origin gives Castle a reason and justification to be the Punisher. While on a day out in the park, the Castle family stumbled over a mob execution and suddenly become witnesses. It doesn't matter if they simply were caught in the crossfire or if they were killed after a panicked and desperate split second decision to kill off any innocent bystanders who happened to be witnesses. The point is that the shooters would have reacted the exact same way if it had been any other random jogger, couple, family or whoever else that happened to stumble into their affairs, it was just sheer bad luck and nothing else that it happened to be the Castle's. Had they not stumbled onto that specific location within a very critical time frame probably only lasting somewhere from seconds to minutes, they would have been perfectly fine. What happened to them could just as well have happened to anyone else instead. The outcome would likely have been the same if another family stumbled onto the scene within the same critical time interval, or if other shooters and mobster families altogether were involved. Crime destroys innocent lives randomly and indiscriminately. Violence and crime could strike at anyone, blindly and at random. There is no justice, as was shown by the courts failure to convict anyone, despite Castle’s eager testimonial. It was but a random situation made possible by crime in general and organised crime in particular, and this is what gives The Punisher some level of philosophical justification to go after ALL criminals. It’s not personal. It’s war. In the movie however, this casual ambiguity and coincidence which is rather profound when you think about it had nothing to do with it. The Saint's weren't having a shootout with another group of mobsters, they were deliberately and actively seeking out Frank Castle and Castle only with the express intention of killing the entire extended family as a direct retaliation towards Frank personally for being the pointman in an FBI sting (why the hell give him so much blame anyway? He was just an actor who played dead before things got really ugly, he didn’t pull the trigger or anything). As such, what happened to Castle could never have happened to anyone else. It could only happen to him, and only within a very specific situation. For all we know, the Saints had never harmed anyone not already involved with organised crime. What happened to Castle happened for one reason only, Howard Saint had a score to settle with him personally, and Olivia Saint wanted Castle's wanted it extended to the whole family for the same reason. It was but personal vendetta, nothing else. This gives Frank Castle all the more reason go after the Saint's specifically, but it all but strips him off any justification to take out anyone else. Indeed, in the movie, the decision to go after all criminals comes seemingly completely out of the blue. One moment the Hensleigh penned Castle charather is contemplating suicide, the next he is determined to call himself the Punisher and kill criminals and rapists (yet he seemingly doesn’t care about the Toro bros). Why? What the hell for? What motivated him to devote his life to this purpose rather than committing suicide or putting his life back together? Joan is after all right there waiting for him; and even told him that good memories could save his life, as they in the end did. How did those memories at the flick of a switch convince him to choose as he did? I always felt that ending was tacked on as a last minute addition, as it didn’t jive with the origin at all. One of the things I appreciate the most with PWZ, is that it looks like the origin will be fixed.
  17. Hopefully, The Preacher will still be brought to sceen in a manner true to the source material at some point. It could be along wait, but I think we'll see it at some point. But I'd rather them not doing it at all than hold back, so since HBO decided it was too good, I'd rather they pass on it than screw it up.
  18. According to alleged insiders at LGF involved with the production, MMT was dumped for one reason and one only: sheer spite and malice on behalf of Joe Drake. Supposedly, he hates the previous head honcho at LGF with a passion, and has targeted his movies for dumping to make his choices look bad. I'm not saying that is the truth, but it does fit in with what Barker has to say about him, and it also explains why MMT was released ONLY in one dollar theaters far outside of city centers and other crowded locations. It does seem like LGF for some reason actively wanted MMT to make as little as possible.
  19. Disc 1: Unrated version + bonus features (only the rated version is available in the US) Disc 2: Work Print Disc 2 is the good stuff, and the box art is amazing. Maybe I'll take a few pics of it and post it here...
  20. I hope you are right, Nomad. But I am not thrilled about the 91 min runningtime, so I hope a the full extended directors cut will be released in the future. Fear, I got that DVD straight from Germany, curtesy of the internet. Your best bet iof finding it is probably ebay or exploited cinema. Mind you, it is PAL encoded, so your gear most be up for that before you attempt playing it if you do get a hold of it. You probably won't like it, but I assure you won't loathe it as much as you do the theatrical cut. The work print is the cut they should have released.
  21. I can't stand the 1989 movie. Recently however, I acquired the Work Print of that movie as part of a limited special edition released in Germany. To my utter shock, the workp rint was...watchable. There is no way it can be what I consider "good", but it certainly was a hell of a lot better than the theathrical cut. Louis Gosset Jr. has a MUCH bigger part in it, we get to see Castle's pre-Punisher life and exactly who killed his family, more charater developing scenes throuout the movie, and the ending is a hundred times as good as the theatrical one. And best of all, the scene of him sitting naked in sewer lasts maybe three seconds tops, and there are NO schizoprhenic monologues where he is talking to god. As such, the Work Print Lundgren Punisher doesn't come off as batshit insane, at least not merely as much. It would seem that the 89' Punisher was screwed up by the studio during the editing process even worse than the theatrical cuts of Daredevil and The Punisher '04 combined. I worry about how much War Zone is going to get screwed up in the editing too. Fingers crossed for a directors cut on Blu-ray and DVD.
  22. About TL's claim that I "strongly believe Tom Jane to be a cheap crybaby" (something much worse pre-edit, but nevermind) Parapharsing doesn't even begin to cover it. That's more like paraphrasing a tiny number of individual and unrelated posts written on the imdb made over several months, all taken out of context, rephrased as something a hundredfold worse than I ever said, and then put it in my mouth - which I think is really uncalled for. I've certainly made some remarks about Hensleigh, for which I am not sorry, but not about Jane. I was one of Jane's biggest defenders from day one; when he was initially announced as the Punisher, I was one of the few who supported his casting on the imdb, and whenever someone makes a derogotary comment about Jane on the current imdb War Zone board, FearEmbodied and myself are the ones consistently defending him. The 2004 movie had a ton of problems, but Jane was not among them, which I've always stressed. He did a fantastic job given the script at hand. I'm surpised TL haven't seen one of these posts, as they are pretty goddamn numerous. I have never said anything in the vein of him being a cry baby, let alone what was stated pre-edit, and I certainly don't think any such thing. On the contrary, I have but the highest respect for him as an actor in general and for his perfomance as André Stander and Frank Castle in particurlar. 99 % of the posts I've ever made about Jane contain nothing but praise. The remaining one percent I fully admit without shame or regret. I dislike The Punisher 2004 due to where Hensleigh took it, and I make no secret of just how low a regard I hold Hensleigh in because of it. However, I always praise Jane and Patton for their performances. They lifted that movie so much. Also, I did indeed think Mutant Chronicles left a lot to be desired. This disappointed me as I really REALLY wanted to like it. I hoped a Sederowsky and Malmberg produced movie would be better, they are both good guys and deserve a string of success. Ultimately however, I thought the script was poor. That is not a slant at Jane, but at the producers and screenwriter for allowing it to be filmed in that state. I am very pro-Paradox, but that could have been done a lot better. Finally, I have never, not once, suggested that Jane is in any way cheap. I have paraphrased Sutter's on a handful of occasions, and even then I've always emphasised that this is rumour, to be taken with a grain of salt. I think I'm very fair and balanced in my comments to everyone 99,8 % of the time. More related to the current conversation; sorry to hear about your girlfriend TL. I do mean that sincerely.
  23. The direction is merely half of it. As stated earlier, my primary bone of contention with Hensleigh is his script, which I feel is more a typical seventies style revenge drama than it is a Punisher story. This has a lot to do with Hensleigh's omission of the Punisher's origin and subsequent removal of his philosophcal justification to do what he does, check out my earlier post for more on that one. Beyond the name Frank Castle, the skull t-shirt (whose origin was also terrible, a gift from his son?), and a number of references to the comic, there is nothing quintessentially Punisher about the story. Take away the name Frank Castle, the skull and a number of references to the comic, and the movie is but a standard revenge movie about a widowed husband in law enfocment who goes after the criminals who killed his family. It is for this reason above all I think the movie fails as a Punisher movie. The chosen style of direction to me enhances the weaknesses of the script, and moves the movie as a whole even further away from my ideas of what makes a Punisher movie. On that note, there are literally dozens of different styles of direction that I think would make for an excellent Punisher movie. I can see the Punisher working John McTiernan style, Paul Veroeven style (my personal favorite director for this), Tony Scott style, as well as "The Departed" style, "Sin City" style, "The Shield" style as well as "Sopranos" style, plus countless more I can't be asked to list. There are tons of ways to make the Punisher work on the film, but in my personal opinion, the combination of Hensleigh's seventies inspired script and the Leone style of direction was not among them. Had the script been up to par and the direction the same or vice versa, it might have been a diferent story. But things being the way they are with that movie, its just not my cup of tea. And while I can only speak for myself, I think there are many who feel the same way. TL wrote: You are paraphrasing me from maybe a total of four posts from the imdb boards. That's fair, but I don't recall referring to Hensleigh precisely with those words in that constellation. I've come close mind you, but I don't think I ever come off as that harsh. I'd rather you didn't use quotation marks unless I used those exact words.
  24. I'd welcome the opportunity to speak to him - I'd be very interested to hear what he had to say to my objections.
  25. I've never said a bad word about Jane, Bradstreet, westerns, Leone or the cinema of the seventies in general. On the contrary, I have huge respect and admiration for all of the above. Hensleigh on the other hand ... not so much. Mind you, those quotes were taken from the imdb, not here. I think I've been rather fair with my critism towards Hensleigh on this board, and argued for why I feel as I do. I strongly disagree with his take on the Punisher, and I'm not afraid to say so. Jane's acting was spot on, Bradstreet's promotional art was teriffic, the movies referenced are excellent, but alas, I think Hensleigh's overall take was completely unsuitable for a Punisher movie and just left a lot to be desired. Sorry if my opinion offends.
  • Create New...