Chris Pratt Shares Plot and Character Details For Jurassic World

Andy from Parks and Recreation is a big fan of helping to remind us that a Jurassic Park-er-World movie is actually happening. Yes, we’ve been told that it is officially coming out next June, but they haven’t even started filming yet.

Editing alone is going to be a dinosaur of a task when it comes to remaking a franchise that literally makes all of its money from having the best special effects of its time, so I’m ready and willing to hear out Pratt on some new story details that will hopefully get us excited.

Let’s over-analyze!

(The following is based on an interview between Chris Pratt and MTV)

Pratt on what drew him to the project: “What I liked about it is that it answers the question of, ‘Why would they do that?’ How do you suspend disbelief to be like, ‘Oh, yes! Let’s make this mistake again! We haven’t learned our lesson about dinosaurs. “We should definitely live with them and see how that works out!””

Wow. Chris said exactly what everyone is thinking.

“After three tries, they answer the question really well through the script. Colin did a great job of writing it and justifying it. Kind of, in his own way, having fun with that so that anybody who goes in with that question will be really amused the way I was.”

OK, so Chris is hinting at a possible motivation for bringing dinosaurs back to life aside from the whole “because dinosaurs” plotline from the first few films. 

Pratt on how his role compares to Ian Malcom and Dr. Alan Grant from previous movies: “He’s got a little of both [characters]. He’s got a little bit of the Goldblum cynicism, but also the Sam Neill excitement at the wonder and the biology of it all.”

If there is anyone who captures enthusiasm in a way that doesn’t actually make us uncomfortable, it’s absolutely Andy Dwyer.


I have to be honest here. Is anyone really excited about this movie? I’m trying to be, as I’ve always been a big fan of the fun that comes with the Jurassic Park movies, but I’m also hesitant to see how the lore has aged.

Keep in mind that this is the same movie that was originally conceptualized to feature human/dinosaur hybrids. Obviously, this is no longer the case and the script is in better hands, but that doesn’t make me any less fearful that this is going to be a major disappointment.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

 

Everything We Know About The New Lex Luthor (Besides Who’s Playing Him)

When I first heard the news that Jesse Eisenberg would be playing the arch-nemesis of Henry Cavill’s Superman, I was a combination of surprised, angry and excited (not in that order).

Regardless, there hasn’t been too much noise yet on what this version of Luthor will actually be like, save for rumors and wish lists.

Well, a source I have in the industry imparted to me some rumors from the studio, and I stress the word rumors. They’re subject to change as far the details go, but I have a feeling they will reveal plenty about the direction this franchise is going to take with one of comic lore’s most infamous villains.

RUMOR #1

Bruce Wayne will allegedly be working with Lex Luthor in order to help rebuild Metropolis after the events of Man of Steel. In regards to Superman, Wayne is a fan while Luthor considers him an outsider, or alien, that doesn’t belong.

Interestingly, the relationship between Luthor and Wayne is already established. They’ve known of each other for years, but they hate each other. Wayne thinks Luthor is amoral, while Luthor believes that Wayne has never worked for everything he has.

RUMOR #2

Luthor will have his iconic shaved head, along with a tattoo of the Metropolis skyline on his right arm.

This apparently has something to do with some gang experience he had as a kid. He was initiated into a street gang when he was 14 and then took it over within a year.

RUMOR #3

Luthor became a billionaire on his own at the age of 18, thus becoming CEO of Lexcorp. He is described as a ruthless genius with street smarts.

This contrasts with other origins surrounding Luthor, who achieves his wealth from his father, Lionel Luthor. In this iteration, however, it seems Lionel won’t have that same role, if any.

Do you believe these rumors? Do they excite you? Make you want to inhale Kryptonite? Let’s discuss…

Oh, and thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Don’t Believe The Man of Steel Theory

For over a day now, a theory has been circulating the web about Man of Steel that is incredibly interesting and would make a lot of sense out of the final scenes of the movie…if it were true.

SPOILERS Ahead (Obviously)

T.J. Kiss proposed yesterday that in the final confrontation between Superman and Zod, when Superman snapped his neck to prevent Zod from obliterating an entire family with his eyes, the family is still killed.

His argument is that when he snaps the neck, it moves Zod’s head toward the family unintentionally, and that is why you don’t see the family again (you just see rubble).

He also posits that Clark doesn’t let out his scream until he looks up, presumably at the remains of the family, which would lend credence to his “no-kill” policy that is implied by the ending.

Here’s the video for you to discern for yourselves:

Convinced?

Don’t be. The theory, while interesting, is shattered by one frame that you missed. If you slow the scene down, you can see the family intact in the corner after Zod has been killed.

man of steel theory

And that’s about it. I wish this could have been a 1,000 word essay that makes me look incredibly intelligent, but at least now when someone tries to bring this theory up the next time you’re not watching Man of Steel, you’ll be properly equipped to disarm the situation.

Thanks for Reading! You can subscribe to this blog by email via the prompt on the sidebar. Otherwise, be sure to stay connected with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Is This What Pixar Movies Will Look Like One Day?

We’ve gotten pretty used to CGI animation. So much so, the idea of animation evolving even further doesn’t always get brought up, at least not in my mind.

But the truth is that innovation is always happening. It’s always…innovating (unlike my vocabulary.) When I was doing research for the Pixar Theory, I couldn’t help but notice just how far we’ve come since Toy Story, though the technological advancements have only been incremental.

Well, that may change in the not-so-distant future. Pixar recently published a video showing off a completely different animation style for our viewing pleasure. You can view the full video below:

Stylizing Animation By Example from Pierre Bénard on Vimeo.

What gets me excited about this type of style is how close it sticks to the original Disney movies. It feels more drawn.

One major complaint about CGI, at least from me, has always been that it has a knack for lacking expression. It just takes way too much time and effort to make computer animated films be as fluid as the animated movies from just 15 years ago. Wow I feel old.

This fusion of art and pixels, however, provides a new twist on how onscreen characters can be rendered. The crisp frame-rate combined with other big words I’m not going to pretend I know could promise to deliver movies we’ve never imagined before.

Of course, these are just white paper innovations, and Pixar probably isn’t close to incorporating them in upcoming movies. In the meantime, we still have the fortune to enjoy the already masterful animation Pixar (and other great studios) have privileged us with.

Thanks for reading! Don’t forget to subscribe to this blog via the right sidebar. You can also connect with me on Twitter (@JonNegroni). I’ll follow you back if you say something witty and awesome.

Trailer Breakdown: Edge of Tomorrow

Screen Shot 2013-12-17 at 9.47.49 AM

I originally wrote this post on Moviepilot.

Summing this movie trailer up in one sentence is ridiculously doable. Unfortunately, I want you to actually read this before you click away and do something productive, so let’s get started on breaking down Edge of Tomorrow.

Our star is none other than Tom Cruise, Scientology’s favorite son (or sun?) and Emily Blunt. In other words, I’m halfway excited about the casting here.

Let’s check out the trailer first and discuss:

Go on…Trailer Breakdown: Edge of Tomorrow

Review: ‘Frozen’

Disney is a strange company, but in the best way possible. They’re bold enough to buy the Marvel franchise, hire Pixar’s mastermind as their creative director of pretty much everything at this point, and continue crafting movies that stay true to the Disney tradition, at least by most loose definitions of the term.

By this tradition, I mean the continuation of the Disney princess phenomenon, including its most recent renaissance (as they say) of the classic Disney Princess movies reinvented to capture the cutting edge animation that reached new heights in the late 80s with The Little Mermaid, only to reach full form thanks to breakout 90s hits like Beauty and the BeastAladdin, and Mulan.

frozen
The rise of Pixar brought on a new age, however, with the onslaught of yet another renaissance in animation — one that rendered any other offering by Disney (ironically) obsolete.

Pixar was their critical and family-driven darling, and the mouse studio didn’t really have the creative direction to answer this problem for quite a while, even when DreamWorks came into its own with the introduction of Shrek and those frankly despicable minions.

This is all to say that Disney plays the long game when necessary. After the tempered success of Princess and the Frog in 2009 and Tangled a year later, it became more than clear to me and others that Lassetter’s Disney was on a true comeback, beginning with Bolt and carrying on today to Frozen.

You see, Disney has been experimenting over the past few years with what I call the “Disney-Pixar-Dreamworks” trilogy. They’ve taken the strongest elements of each animation studio and developed full-fledged Disney movies with them.

One might argue that this all started with Meet The Robinsons or the aforementioned Bolt, but these movies were mere precursors to what Disney would ultimately settle on creatively. No, this all started with Tangled, a new take on a classic Disney character named Rapunzel.

The checklist is simple:

1. Does the movie have a Disney Princess and/or fantasy setting?

2. Are the animation and storytelling in sync, as it is with Pixar?

3. Does it contain lovable side characters that shape the marketing campaign akin to Dreamworks?

This list is a complete yes to the “trilogy” that is Tangled, Wreck It Ralph, and Frozen. And it shows in how Frozen in its most basic components is a mixture of several movies and concepts: It has the character relationships of Shrek, the plucky female from Tangled, and the Broadway musical effort of Wicked (complete with the plot of two sisters at odds with each other).

This is no complaint, as Frozen manages to also maintain its own originality and charm between the pages, mostly thanks to the ambitious retelling of The Snow Queen (though the similarities between stories is slim at best), a story that isn’t told often enough complicated by Disney’s best soundtrack in years, perhaps since Mulan or Lilo and Stitch if you’re an Elvis fan.

 

frozen

The Snow Queen is an old Danish fairytale most audiences have never heard of, centering around two sisters who happen to be princesses living in a kingdom Disney has deemed Arendelle. The oldest sister, Elsa, has magic powers of no explanation: she can turn anything into snow or ice for reasons the audience is never clued in on, thankfully. As she grows older, her powers become harder to control, and for reasons I won’t spoil, she shuns her doting sister, Anna, for the majority of their childhood.

The opening sequence to Frozen is clearly gunning for the same emotional beats of Up and its first eight minutes, offering a lively, albeit sad look at the broken relationship between these two girls. You don’t have to be a sister or have one to feel the cloying sentiment in this number, aptly called Do You Want to Build a Snowman?

frozen

After an unfortunate incident, Elsa unintentionally curses the kingdom with an eternal winter (even though it’s summer), covering the land in snow and paranormal snow creatures. She runs away in order to isolate herself and is pursued by Anna and some of her new friends, a group of misfit characters to put it kindly.

Plot-wise, the story is strong and well-written, focusing more on its comedic timing than anything all that dramatic, but the music seems to be the tool that delivers the film’s most poignant moments, including some key lessons meant to empower young girls, including a twist on the romantic love story that is sure to delight parents.

The characters, for the most part, are likable and effortless in their inclusion as this is Anna and Elsa’s story.  When we are introduced to Kristoff and his reindeer Sven, who have a friendship reminiscent of Han Solo and Chewbacca, the movie succeeds at making them a worthwhile addition without distracting from the main plot. Even Olaf, who should have been annoying in hindsight, provided the levity and fun required of him in a film that could otherwise be deemed dark and heavy-handed.

frozen

The only complaint worth lodging at Frozen in my view is the ending, as it goes with many animated movies of recent years. It’s not terrible in any sense, but it is a slight let down in how the film builds and executes, aside from a minor twist on the material involving the impact of the two sisters and their relationship. For every other character, there’s little for them to do by the final minutes.

Other than that, Frozen is a fantastic installment in the Disney archives, providing a new and fun adventure that children and nostalgic young adults like myself will enjoy thoroughly.

Review: ‘The World’s End’

Is the World's End Worth Watching

The World’s End is the unofficial third entry in a trilogy of (seemingly) unrelated genre-parody movies done by Edgar Wright, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. 

Shaun of the Dead gave us a movie that pokes fun at zombie movies, Hot Fuzz obliterated buddy cop movie clichés and we now have The World’s End, which attempts to give current sci-fi a reason to feel embarrassed.

In 1990, Gary King (Simon Pegg) was the leader of a group of rebellious teens who make the cast of Skins look like respectable youths. Fast forward 20 years and King is now an alcoholic who can’t let go of the past.

Meanwhile, King’s group of once-adoring sidekicks have become estranged, settling into adulthood with careers and families. In an effort to reunite them and relive the old days, King manipulates the gang into having one final night out in their hometown of Newton Haven.

The night in question is the completion of “The Golden Mile,” a 12-pub crawl that the group wasn’t able to complete 20 years ago that King now obsesses over finishing. The final pub in that mile is aptly named “The World’s End,” a symbol of the chaotic finale Gary King seems fixated on.

By itself, the first act of the movie would be enough to solidify a great story about a grown man who makes the audience cringe with his increasingly absurd antics. Simon Pegg’s performance as King is his best yet, in my opinion, and is simply fun to watch, especially since this is a bit of a deviation for Pegg as an actor.

Of course, this is Edgar Wright, so the movie takes a turn for the apocalypse by the second act, as the group discovers that their hometown has been invaded by what they hilariously describe as “blue-filled robots.”

In order to keep the “robots” from knowing their discovery, the group decides to finish the Golden Mile anyway. Because of this, the gang gets even more drunk and begins making crazy decisions that would normally make the audience cry plot hole.

Instead, we are treated to a visually fun and frantic comedy that had me laughing wildly throughout.

Though Pegg and Nick Frost steal the screen as the main cast, I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the secondary characters who completed what King calls “The Five Musketeers.” Each character in the group was very interesting and had their own complicated personalities, giving me an actual reason to root for them in their plight.

That makes me sad to say that the love interest, Sam (played by Rosamund Pike) was a bit too one-dimensional compared to her counterparts and didn’t contribute enough to the plot in my opinion.

Still, the movie is well-done in terms of dialogue, acting and story. It was refreshing to watch something that took risks and aimed for unpredictability.

If there’s one thing I loved most about this movie, it would be how well they treated the character arc for Gary King, a fictional person with a surprising amount of depth for a comedy. Also, the conclusion of the film is easily my favorite movie ending this year. Seriously, they nailed it.

Is it worth watching?

This is a must-watch for fans of Shaun of the DeadHot Fuzz and even classic sci-fi movies in general. The jokes and mayhem are a bit raunchy, but the R-rating doesn’t include nudity. The humor is deadpan at times, so if you’re not a fan of British entertainment, you may want to go for the rental for this one. 

Otherwise, I have little doubt you will have a good time with this movie.