The Times has compiled a list of what it reckons will be the 50 big movie hits of 2008, boldly sticking Batman's next outing, The Dark Knight, at the top of its blockbuster compilation. Next up is Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince, followed by Bond 22, Iron Man, and Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, in that …
I think that the order is a bit out
Harry Potter & The Half-Blood Prince
Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Dark Knight
Cloverfield at 26?? Wow, I was expecting it to be higher up than that.
I would thought Indiana Jones 4
I mean Batman Begins was good, but it was not a mega-blockbuster in the ticket sales stakes, so its sequel is unlikely to me the biggest movie of '08.
I reckon No' 1 will be Indiana Jones and the search for the Zimmer Frame of doom - if only because it will appeal to almost everyone (although based on previous outings probably not Nazis)
It comes as a bit of a surprise that its not a 20th Century Fox film sitting at the top of a Murdoch rags list.
Sex & the Shitty
I wholeheartedly agree Lester. As a great man once said...
"Who wants to go see a movie about 4 mouthy bar broads"
Very much looking forward to Bond and Iron Man though
What the deuce!
Hellboy II at number 11?!?!?!
wasn't the title...
...Indiana Jones & the Titanium Hip?
The leather jacket with the hat and whip, please
I can't believe that No Country For Old Men is at number 47! Iron Man and Bond will be worthy of an expensive cinema ticket.
You didn't ask, but the worst films this year are going to be http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/postal/trailer/ and http://www.meetthespartans.com
sorry it will be harry
Given that all the Harry Potter movies are in the top 13 movies, i feel sure that the latest film will beat all comers
Iron man should be nowhere near the top, it looks extremely silly - on a par with the godawfullness of the Hulk movie and the rank stupidity of all the Spiderman movies.
The Dark Knight looks bland and without substance - they tried to beef it up by making the Joker look like the Crow with red lipstick and gave him a few pen knives to make him look different from the Joker played by Jack Nicholson (and critics of this movie will compare the two in favour of Jack Nicholson, of this I prophesy).
The Cloverfield movie will be the same directionless nonsensical amalgamation of half baked concepts tat that Lost was; and will have the same following of that aspect of the 'great unwashed' that watch it thinking that maybe it makes them clever.
No, it doesn't, and it is not your fault.
Indianna Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull looks to be the shame of the entire series if what I have read about the plot etc is actually true.
Bond 22 might be worth a look - but the bond girls will not be worth the hype. None of them can compare to Ursula Andress in that scene; rank amateurs the lot of them.
Thus ends my scathing tuppence attack on this latest batch of shoddily made and lazily written work manifested as a tangled mess of celluloid dumped on our mostly depressed but slightly hopeful popcorn strewn laps as we sit in the musty darkness looking up at the light.
Surely it's got to be up the top. If only because of the hype and viral marketing campaign, a la Blair Witch.
Disclaimer : this post doesn't agree or disagree with the hypothetical placement of Cloverfield.
Net Hype vs. Real-Life Hype
The Snakes on a Plane phenomenon again? It's the Web guys who are wetting their pants about Batman - and it will be the rest of the world to watch Indiana Jones, the last pre-Web hero, I am sure.
I can guarantee...
..that "Wolverine" won't make the top *100* of 2008.
...since it's still casting, hasn't started filming, and is currently scheduled for a May 1, 2009 release... (http://www.comics2film.com/index.php?a=project&j=448)
(Icon selected because it's the geekiest one available.*)
(* except for the penguin, of course.)
Indiana Jones & the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Wonder how this will work out.. since both Jones' made use of the Good Cup, they shouldn't have aged at all.
"Hollywood and the Quest for a Decent Plot"
"Hollywood and the Remake of a Remake"
"The Search For Half a Brain Cell in Hollywood Studio Execs"
"I know what you made last summer, so here's another dire remake/sequel"
"Thought we'd run out of ideas? Let's 'reboot' a classic series of films with younger actors, more CGI, worse plot, and then we can remake that next year"
Though the Potter films are always worth a viewing, though I can't help but feel this one will be the weakest as the entire book is Teen Angst stuff.
Dark Night is just poor Batman remake no 2 with nice CGI, and still no patch on Burton's flicks.
The Indy film has a bad start with a daft name (I assume from Lucas) in the style of "The Phantom Menace". Though Lucas doesn't appear to have been let near the script and Stevie-boy is doing the honours as usual so maybe it will have half a chance, but not a patch on Raiders.
What movie would you recommend then? Grumpy Old Men?
My tip for the top
Leningrad Cowboys Go St Petersberg
(then Moscow, Krasnoyarsk, Ulan Bator ...). The ultimate alt road movie of all time.
// the ripe long afghan is mine, tak
Now that should really be in the list
(need blood on the smiley icon)
"For the record, this hack would rather chop off his own arm with a can-opener than sit through a couple of hours of Sex & The City, which inexplicably features at 16."
Not a patch on the Burton films?
Given that the Burton films just had a man dressed up as a bat, with more time spent admiring the villains (who were nothing like their comic book counterparts), than what made Batman, erm Batman, I'd have to say that you're far more interested in style over substance.
Batman Begins was a far better film, which made Bruce Wayne the centrepiece of the story. None of those 4 films made by Burton or Schumacher have been watched since Nolan's flick in my house.
I prefer a bit more depth to my superheros, rather than flash or spectacle.
Fingers crossed that Ledger nails the Joker (and by that, I mean the scarily intelligent, murdering psychopath from the best comics, not the glitzy Jack Nicholson wannabe, that most people seem to think the Joker is).
Was that The Times of London? :)
Fingers crossed for Batman
Hence the Penguin icon!
Batman Begins was a bore fest with half the film spent doing ninja training and the rest really had little substance. As for the comic origins, it depends which version you prefer anyway.
Personally I didn't think making Batman a kick-ass ninja and shooting it sepia provided any more "depth" to Wayne/Batman anyway. Burton/Keaton's Wayne felt more tortured and complex than in Begins. Whilst there is more background in Begins, it just doesn't come across well and ultimately Wayne is an uninteresting character. The Batman character is much the same, just with a lot more kick-ass ninja stuff going on.
Maybe a lot of it is down to actors though. As much as the script may be more "accurate" to the (later) comics, it doesn't make up for actors that just aren't believable in their roles. Keaton and Nicholson were, and came across as true superhero and villain. Just didn't feel that with Begins.
- Vid Hubble 'scope snaps 200,000-ton chunky crumble conundrum
- Bugger the jetpack, where's my 21st-century Psion?
- Google offers up its own Googlers in cloud channel chumship trawl
- Windows 8.1 Update 1 spewed online a MONTH early – by Microsoft
- Interview Global Warming IS REAL, argues sceptic mathematician - it just isn't THERMAGEDDON