Hello and welcome to VultureHound‘s weekly news round-up, where we bring you the biggest and best news to come out of the film industry every Sunday.
We’re talking reboots, remakes and sequels this week, because in contemporary cinema that’s all that exists. Seriously, when is someone going to make an original (mainstream) movie? Because the news we’ve got for you today really hammers down how low Hollywood’s creativity levels are.
And then after all that, we’ve also got James Cameron being a bit of a douche-bag. Enjoy:
Flatliners lives up to its name with early review scores
It’s the weekend, which means cinemas across the world have been gifted a bunch of new releases, and audiences have been presented the question of ‘which film shall I go see next’?
Well, I can’t make up your mind for you, but looking around the web, I can tell you which film many critics don’t think you should go see.
And that film is Flatliners.
Directed by Niels Arden Oplev, Flatliners is a remake of the 1990 psychological horror film of the same name, which features several medical students taking turns to stop their hearts in the hopes of discovering what happens after death. Unfortunately for them, every time they come back to life, spooky side effects and unearthed secrets come along to haunt them.
Sounds alright, right?
Wrong, apparently. According to a bunch of critics picked by Rotten Tomatoes, the film is not good. At all. Apparently, it’s the perfect example of a film that shouldn’t have been remade. The film currently holds a score of 0%, with critics giving the following brief reviews:
“We live in an age of unnecessary remakes – but the new Flatliners movie, by Danish director Niels Arden Oplev, has the distinction of being perhaps the most unnecessary of them all.” – Christian Holub, Entertainment Weekly
“About as inessential as reboots get, “Flatliners”… otherwise offers no reason for reanimating this long-expired property.” – Andrew Barker, Variety
“A fright-free fiasco. This update of a silly 1990 Julia Roberts thriller is even more witless and stupefyingly dull than the original.” – Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
“This Flatliners is in fact a new definition of “meh.” – Glenn Kenny, New York Times
“The original Flatliners should have had a ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ order attached to it.” – John Nugent, Empire
Eesh. And that’s just some of the bigger named publications. There are currently no professional reviews that aren’t stamped as ‘rotten’. Maybe save your money on this one, folks.
Flatliners is out now.
Charlie picks some new angels
Because one remade property wasn’t enough, here’s a second. This week, new casting details for the upcoming re-re-remake of Charlie’s Angels hit the web, and is offering up an interesting selection of Angels.
Kristen Stewart (Twlight, Snow White and the Huntsman) and Lupita Nyong’o (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, 12 Years a Slave – although, let’s be honest, you already knew who both of them were) are rumoured to join the cast, presumably as the titular ‘Angels’.
So yeah, isn’t that something. I don’t have much more to say on the matter, having never seen any of the properties various iterations. The film will be directed by Elizabeth Banks, another world-renowned actress who recently appeared in Power Rangers and has also directed the three Pitch Perfect films.
As indicated above, this will be the third remake of the Charlie’s Angels franchise, making it the fourth attempt over all; the second film reboot, on top of the two TV series.
Charlie’s Angels hits cinemas on June 9th 2019.
John McClane still refuses to Die Hard
First, there was Die Hard.
Then, there was Die Harder.
After that, there was Die Hard With A Vengeance.
Twelve years later, we got Live Free or Die Hard.
An unfortunate follow-up presented itself in A Good Day to Die Hard.
And now, we’re getting the next chapter. Which is also the first chapter (it’s a whole sequel/prequel-flashback situation going on). And that next first chapter?
DIE HARD: YEAR ONE.
Firstly, can I just ask why they are still making these? And secondly, if you have to make more of them, AT LEAST STICK WITH THE NAMING CONVENTION! Die Hard: Year One? Pitiful.
Anyway, the news is that this will indeed be a sequel/prequel sort of thing, as Bruce Willis has signed on to reprise his role as John McClane. Die Hard: Year One will see McClane battling a threat in the present that links back to a case he had when he was just starting out, and will see a new actor portraying the young McClane in flashbacks.
I don’t know who this is being made for exactly, but I for one am not excited. Bruce Willis very clearly doesn’t care about the craft anymore, and these films moved past the point of believability a long time ago. How can so much shit happen to one man? Life really isn’t fair. To him, or to us, because we’re getting this movie.
Die Hard 1-5 are available on DVD, Blu-Ray and Digital Download now.
Destiny has dire plans for Thor: Ragnarok as it presents a new trailer
While I love Marvel, they have a tendency to spoil pretty much everything about their films before the film drops. The best example would be Avengers: Age of Ultron. Having watched all the TV spots and trailers (I was, understandably, very excited) I started to realise that I had perhaps given myself too much information going into the film, and proceeded to write down how I thought the film would play out. In the end, the only real thing I got wrong was the exact membership of the ‘new’ Avengers and the type of relationship Captain America and Iron Man would share as they departed at the end.
More recently, Spider-Man: Homecoming sported a similarly stupid amount of spoiler-filled trailers (although I had learnt my lesson by this point) and some complained that, once again, you could guess the whole plot of the film from the trailers alone.
Well, now, it’s Thor: Ragnarok‘s turn. A new international trailer dropped earlier this week, and although it doesn’t give too many new things away, it does confirm some things that were long suspected, and place certain plot points and characters at certain parts of the film. Still, the new additions make it a fairly fun trailer, which you can watch below:
Thor: Ragnarok flies into cinemas on October 27th 2017.
James Cameron’s war with the Wonder Women continues
So, every now and then in this segment I like to complain about James Cameron. Don’t get me wrong, he’s made some great movies, but as of late, he seems to encapsulate everything I hate about contemporary cinema. He threatens us with endless amounts of sequels to things that no one wants, he promises to reboot a franchise that’s been beaten to death more times than anything should and he keeps insinuating that he’s the only person able to create strong female characters. That’s just a few things, but they are my current three main issues.
Anyway, in regards to that final point, Cameron recently criticized the character Wonder Woman in the smash hit film Wonder Woman:
“I’m not saying I didn’t like the movie but, to me, it’s a step backwards. Sarah Connor was not a beauty icon. She was strong, she was troubled, she was a terrible mother, and she earned the respect of the audience through pure grit. And to me, [the benefit of characters like Sarah] is so obvious. I mean, half the audience is female!”
Understandably, director Patty Jenkins was rather irked by Cameron’s words, and responded with the following:
— Patty Jenkins (@PattyJenks) August 25, 2017
In response, Cameron again let his thoughts be heard when asked what he thought about Jenkins’ post, and told The Hollywood Reporter the following:
“I’ll stand by that. I mean, she was Miss Israel, and she was wearing a kind of bustier costume that was very form-fitting. She’s absolutely drop-dead gorgeous. To me, that’s not breaking ground. They had Raquel Welch doing stuff like that in the ’60s. It was all in a context of talking about why Sarah Connor — what Linda created in 1991 — was, if not ahead of its time, at least a breakthrough in its time. I don’t think it was really ahead of its time because we’re still not [giving women these types of roles].
Linda looked great. She just wasn’t treated as a sex object. There was nothing sexual about her character. It was about angst, it was about will, it was about determination. She was crazy, she was complicated. … She wasn’t there to be liked or ogled, but she was central, and the audience loved her by the end of the film. So as much as I applaud Patty directing the film and Hollywood, uh, “letting” a woman direct a major action franchise, I didn’t think there was anything groundbreaking in Wonder Woman. I thought it was a good film. Period. I was certainly shocked that [my comment] was a controversial statement. It was pretty obvious in my mind. I just think Hollywood doesn’t get it about women in commercial franchises. Drama, they’ve got that cracked, but the second they start to make a big commercial action film, they think they have to appeal to 18-year-old males or 14-year-old males, whatever it is. “
This, in turn, aggrivated former Wonder Woman Linda Carter:
On top of their responses, there are several articles that have cropped up online telling James Cameron why he needs to stop. Here’s one written by Margaret Gardiner for The Huffington Post.
Maybe James Cameron will read it and finally shut up.