In defense of... Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.

With yet another would-be remake/reboot/sequel of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre arriving in theaters tonight night at 10pm (this time merely titled Texas Chainsaw 3D), I thought now would be as good a time as any to offer my thoughts on my favorite entry in the very long running series.  No, I'm not talking about the admittedly groundbreaking Tobe Hopper original, nor the surprisingly good 2003 remake, nor even one of the wacky 'official' sequels.  No, truth be told, my favorite variation on the adventures of Leatherface and his cannibalistic family remains the last one.  I'm speaking of course of Jonathan Liebesman's 2006 prequel to Marcus Nispel's 2003 remake (complicated, I know), entitled merely Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning.  The film was a moderate box office success ($19 million opening weekend, $51 million worldwide off a $16 million budget) but was roundly panned by most critics and even a large number of would-be hardcore horror fans.  To this day, I'm not sure why.  Yes, it can be argued that we don't need an origin story for Leatherface and his murderous clan. We don't need to see how he was born, how he got the chainsaw, or how a certain villain from the prior entry happened to have lost his legs.  But perhaps too well hidden in the minutiae of its origin stories and mythology building is nothing less than a top-flight horror film.

Irony alert: Fans decry alleged unfaithfulness of Michael Bay's Ninja Turtles, a property immortalized by an unfaithful and (horrors!) kid-friendly cartoon.

This isn't exactly 'new news', but the irony took awhile to sink in, and it somewhat ties in with that "Titanic was real?!" piece I wrote last week.  As pretty much all of you know, the Michael Bay-run Platinum Dunes is producing Paramount's Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles reboot due next year. Jonathan Liebesman is directing, but the real source of umbrage is a comment Michael Bay made a few weeks ago concerning the possibly updated origins of everyone's favorite teenage mutant ninja turtles.  To quote, "These turtles are from an alien race, and they are going to be tough, edgy, funny and completely lovable."  With that comment, the entire Internet exploded with petulant fanboy rage, the sort of thing that makes film lovers in general look bad, with would-be fans aghast that Mr. Bay might alter the characters and make them 'alien' instead of 'mutant'.  I won't go into the specific reactions from specific parties, but eventually director Liesebesman told everybody to chill out and correctly explained that, according to the comics, the mutagen that turned four turtles into a 'ninja fighting team' was in fact alien in origin. Not only is this a prime example of fans going absolutely insane due to filmmakers (specifically ones as loathed by the geek set as Michael Bay, arguably because he makes big-budget spectacles that cater to jocks instead of nerds) have the gall to deviate from alleged sacred source material, but it represents a kind of cultural amnesia in terms of why those Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are still somewhat popular 25 years after their creation.  I'm talking about that horrifying unfaithful and kid-friendly cartoon that ran for ten seasons starting in 1987.  You probably can sing the theme by heart.

Review: Wrath of the Titans (2012) mostly delivers the big-scale, cheesy matinee goods, in genuinely glorious 3D to boot.

Wrath of the Titans

2012
99 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Jonathan Liebesman's Wrath of the Titans is arguably about as 'good' as a movie called Wrath of the Titans can be expected to be.  It is convincingly acted by its principals, has a story that mostly makes sense, and has at least a few scenes of genuine visual enchantment.  I could complain that I wish it had more of what it does right (epic battles of humans versus gods, some wonderful set designs, Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes having a full-blown 'camp-out') and less of what it does wrong (an almost beside-the-point narrative, a relatively blank-slate supporting cast, generally useless attempts at character development), and clever readers will notice that I just did in an offhand fashion.  But the picture delivers the goods in ways that the Louis Leterrier original did not two years ago.  It is also clear that Warner Bros learned its lesson regarding cheap 3D-conversions.  While Clash of the Titans became the poster child for the evils of 3D-cash ins, Wrath of the Titans features some of the most impressive live-action 3D seen to date.  If you're actually going to spend money on something called Wrath of the Titans, it is honestly worth seeing in its 3D glory.  Of course, there is irony in me recommending something that works best as a cheap Saturday matinee in a format that makes it noticeably less cheap, but that's your conundrum.

Fool me once... Ironically, the Wrath of the Titans trailer looks spectacular in 3D.

As you may recall, the 2010 remake of Clash of the Titans became the whipping boy for lousy 3D-conversions after Warner Bros. hastily converted the 2D feature in order to cash in on the success of Avatar.  The film opened with over $60 million (mostly due to some terrific trailers) and eventually grossed nearly $500 million worldwide.  Alas, the picture was critically-slammed and took it extra-hard on the chin for some truly terrible 3D-conversion work, which was barely in evidence and served to only make the film so dark as to be occasionally unwatchable.  The Jonathan Liebesman-directed sequel, Wrath of the Titans, is being released March 30th.  Judging by the 3D version of the trailer, Warner Bros. doesn't plan on making the same mistake twice.

Review: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles
2011
116 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Rare is the movie that loses points for being too realistic. But Jonathan Liebesman's alien invasion picture feels less like an epic and more like a genuinely plausible war picture. This is not a bad thing, and the film is generally successful at showing what the military response to such a domestic threat might be. The film is basically Black Hawk Down, with the faceless marauders being from outer-space instead of militant indignant people. While the marketing promises scale, the film merely delivers claustrophobic survival with no real deeper meaning that would give the carnage any real weight. Liebesman gets the details seemingly right, but the end result is a war picture where the fact that the invaders are from 'up there' seems almost beside the point.

Battle: Los Angeles gets a teaser.

There is apparently a lawsuit going on right now between Sony and the makers of Skyline, as apparently the Strause Brothers and company did special effects work flirting with directing the upcoming alien invasion saga, before going off and making their own low-budget version (think the lawsuit that drives the narrative of The Social Network). So it's an unsurprising bit of 'up-yours' that Sony has this shiny and impressive new teaser to debut on the very day Skyline opens. Sony seems to be saying: "Skyline was the cheap $20 million version, Battle: Los Angeles is the real deal." As for the trailer itself, it certainly seems to have an impressive scale, and I'm a fan of director Jonathan Liebesman. He was on the shortlist to direct Chris Nolan's Superman and he eventually got the gig directing Wrath of the Titans on the alleged strength of this picture. The only recognizable cast member is Michelle Rodriguez, and the soft and haunting soundtrack gives the teaser a weight that generic action music would have denied it. So far so good. This one comes out March 11, 2011.

Scott Mendelson

Jonathan Liebesman to direct Clash of the Titans 2. Why that's good news...

Normally I couldn't care less about a sequel to this year's Clash of the Titans remake. The film wasn't very good, and it was most notable for a stunningly awful 3D conversion. I was lucky/smart enough to see the film in 2D (I later sampled the 3D so I could confirm its inadequacy), but the film is still a botched bore, although this seems to be yet another case where poor Louis Leterrier had his movie radically altered in the editing room. But if there must be a sequel, at least Jonathan Liebseman will be directing it. Why is that good news? Well, because first of all, Liebseman has some history with studio interference, as his debut feature, Darkness Falls, underwent massive studio tinkering, so hopefully he can stand up to the newly hands-on Warner execs (the formally hands-off studio apparently tinkered with Clash of the Titans, Terminator: Salvation, and Edge of Darkness). Second of all, his short film Rings, which was shot to coincide with The Ring Two in 2005, is the best American variation on the Ring mythology yet made, better than the rock-solid American remake of The Ring and quite a bit better than the terrible Ring Two. Third of all, this means that his upcoming alien invasion picture, Battle: Los Angeles, is obviously making some studio execs very happy, implying that it may live up to its clever teaser.