Jarhead is missing a star!

In Billybob's review he mentions the differences of opinion around the office about the movie Jarhead, and surprise, I am one of the dissenters in the group. Sam Mendes is an amazing story teller and Jarhead is just that, Amazing story telling. I agree with Billybob that their are similarities to the Kubrick classic Full Metal Jacket, if you dismiss the 2nd half of FMJ where they get pinned down by the sniper - The movies are VERY similar!

Jarhead is all about the lives of the men in the USMC sent to Desert Storm, not the actual war so it was bound to be slower and more methodical than the Vietnam era USMC classic. In FMJ the war was all about boots on the ground and holding territory fighting an enemy that absolutely would rather die than give up an inch, The Gulf War was the shock and awe death from above style of warfare against an enemy that just wanted to get out. The emotion that went into FMJ was all about the fear of being one of the 58,000 young men that would end up coming home in a bag and Kubrick used that to perfection. The Gulf War was over so quickly that our guys never got a chance to have that deep seeded fear, so most of the books from that period are all about the guys and their experiences, which were a little less terrifying than the ones from the 60's so Mendes used what he had and made a great story from it.

Let me clarify that I have no doubt that the men and women in Iraq and Kuwait in 91' had the same fear of death and dismemberment in the desert and they were just as great as those from the guys in the Jungles of Vietnam - There just aren't as many books or movies to draw from it.

I love blood and guts war movies like Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers, Hamburger Hill and Enemy at the Gates but my all time favorite is Patton and if you've seen it, you know it isn't known for it's action sequences, it's known for story telling. Another really good war movie from this year is The Great Raid so if you find Jarhead to be flat go check it out when it hits DVD shelves this December 20th.

I love war movies that don't try and preach to me - Jarhead told me a story and it didn't piss me off as I walked out of the theatre, like most Hollywood anti-war films try and do. Platoon... Oliver Stone is a shmuck!

The Hitman cometh!

With the recent success or failure - Depends who you ask around our offices - of Doom and other Video game based films, we knew there would be more. A lot more! Some games just scream out loud to be made into a feature film and others, well they shouldn't even be video games. Look at the list of flops in this genre and you will know what I mean; Mario Brothers, Double Dragon, Street Fighter, House of the Dead... etc, etc.

I will admit not all of them were bad, there are a couple that I enjoyed a good bit for one reason or another. Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil 1 and 2, Tomb Raider 2 and Doom were all pretty cool movies and stayed true to the theme and pace of the games. My problem with making a video game into a movie is very simple, it spoils the F'N game! The game is a movie! It has a beginning, a middle and an end (unless it is being designed with a sequel in mind) and 9 times out of 10 the writing in most games is superior to that of the movie it will spawn. So why do it!

'Artists' in film-making will claim a video game's depth and tone can never equal that of a film due to the fact that the sprites on screen aren't real people and can't tell a story with their emotions like a real 'actor' can. That used to be very true, the voice acting for video games used to be the wet drizzling sheeots, but lately it's as good as you will find in some documentaries. Why? Because actors all over are making the conversion from screen to voice work, especially if your star isn’t quite as bright anymore, and it is working for both parties involved. Just ask Ray Liotta.

Enough droning on about Hollywood picking the bones of more successful forms of media to continue its failed attempt to entertain, let's get to why I am so irritated today. One of my all time favorite titles in the console PC gaming world is Eidos' Hitman series. It has everything, creepy storylines, gore out the yang, guns galore and an anti-hero as cool as the other side of the pillow in Agent 47. This is a game that was born to become a movie so now it's going to happen. Vin Diesel will wear the black suit and get his head tattood to become 47 and although other sites are bitchin' and moanin' about it I think it's a good fit. Heck the guy has his own video game company so you know he will understand the character and will play it as it was originally written. If you saw Pitch Black you know he can be dark if he needs to be and this character is darker than any other in video games. I say if the story is good and director doesn’t scuk the movie might be pretty good.

Games like Hitman, Halo, V for Vendetta (almost here and will probably suck) and Spy Hunter will all be brought to life on the big screen in the next year so whether we like it or not the trend is going to continue. I say stop now, just leave it alone because just like readers of novels... The game is always better than the movie!

Bond, James Bond

Let's talk a little bit of Bond. That's exactly what the producers of the next film wanted by hyping the introduction of the latest actor to play James Bond. The next film will be based on Fleming's first 007 novel, Casino Royale. And the actor who will play him? Get ready. It's Daniel Craig!

Who?

Yeah, that's the proper reaction.

It gets worse when you see who it is. They picked a goofy looking blonde haired guy to play the handsome suave dark haired James Bond. At least he's English, so he should have no problem with the accent. You're most likely to recognize Craig from his potrayal of the bad guy in Road to Perdition with Tom Hanks and Paul Newman.

The director promises us a darker more serious 007. Ok. That worked out really well for Timothy Dalton when they tried to get more serious and contemporary with the Bond character. Excuse me while I hack up a sarcasm ball. Dalton bombed in every regard. If you adjust the box office receipts for inflation, his movies are at the bottom of the 007 performance list.

So why did they get rid of Pierce Brosnan? He was the actor Bond fans wanted for the role for years. Brosnan described being told he would be replaced as a kick in the gut, so he obviously wanted to do it again. No idea why the producers thought otherwise. Perhaps box office receipts. Die Another Day totally tanked. But Goldeneye and World is Not Enough are in the Top 10 Bond films when adjusted for inflation.

Who has the rest of the Top 10? Sean Connery. The only Roger Moore entry in the top 10 is Moonraker. Connery would be the best candidate to play Bond again even if he is 100 years old. And what about Moore? He's older than Connery.

Who do you think would've been better choices? The popular pick is Hugh Jackman. Other names kicked around include pretty boys Colin Ferrell and Jude Law. My choice? I would've liked to have seen what Jason Statham could do with the role. Yeah, I know he's bald. However, he's quietly become quite good at action and does so with a real subtle humor that would play well with Bond fans I think.