Rush Hour 3 Tagged Articles at Cinematical

When it comes down to it, Brett Ratner might not be the most hated man in the movie business -- but he's definitely in the top five. In a profile for Ad Age, the director sat down to talk about Brett Ratner Brands, his new consultancy business. But things get interesting right at the end of the article when the journalist dropped the bomb that Ratner might be working on a big-screen version of the best-selling video game, God of War.

For those of you who haven't played it (and I really recommend you do), here is a quick primer: God of War centers on Kratos, a celebrated soldier who is haunted by his past transgressions and his debt to the Gods of Olympus. It could have just been your typical hack and slash game, but the cinematic approach and highly entertaining story line earned it a reputation as one of the best around.

Talk of a feature film surfaced back in 2005, and Universal was the studio named to produce. According to recent reports, the script has already been finished and casting has begun to heat up (some recent buzz has Djimon Hounsou in consideration for the lead). But then fans the world over had to deal with the unpleasant news that Uwe Boll was being considered to direct -- luckily, this never came to be. So I guess Ratner could be considered a step in the right direction. Then again, if you had the misfortune of seeing Rush Hour 3, you would probably disagree.

[via Film Junk]

Every time I see an action movie with shaky, hand-held camerawork, I take a moment in my review to complain about it, but I never have the room to go into detail about why I hate it so much. Now that Michael Bay's Transformers (360 screens), Rob Zombie's Halloween (371 screens) and Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 (400 screens) have fallen into my humble lower domain, I'd like to discus it further.

The earliest example of shaky-cam I can remember comes in Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (1964). Kubrick was known as filmmaker married to smooth, steady camerawork, using long takes, wide, deep compositions and slow, clean, traveling movements. So when he used the hand-held to emphasize the chaos of combat in Dr. Strangelove, it was an innovation. The scene has two important attributes: it's still recorded in long takes, so the viewer has a relatively good idea what's going on, but more importantly, in this particular scene, in this particular movie, it doesn't matter exactly what's going on. Only the larger concept of the fracas itself matters.

Today, just about every other Hollywood film uses shaky-cam, though European filmmakers generally prefer longer takes and less shaking. Since cameras get lighter and easier to use every year, it makes sense. With hand-held, it takes much less time to set up a shot. No more laying down track or mapping out every inch of camera movement. But hand-held has been quickly abused, and it's almost always used wrong. Bay's Transformers is a particularly heinous example. Each time a transformer switches from car to robot, Bay moves his camera right up to the action, as if it's taking place mere inches from our faces. Since the robots are several stories high, this is painfully disorienting. It's like trying to view the Empire State Building by waving a camera in front of a few bricks. Moreover, a filmmaker friend told me that, because the robots were created with CGI, Bay probably added his shaking camera after principal photography, with computers.

Zombie's Halloween should offer a pretty cut-and-dried case study. For dialogue sequences, Zombie keeps the camera fairly still, but when Michael Myers attacks, he begins jerking and lurching around. This does not emphasize the terror. It's more like riding a roller coaster and anticipating a ten-story drop before suddenly finding yourself thrown from the ride. Compare this to John Carpenter's masterful original, which was also filmed handheld, but via long, graceful, gliding Steadicam shots. Part of the problem with most shaky-cam work is that the director is forced to cut it together very quickly to hide the fact that very little is actually visible.

In my book, Ratner's crimes are a good deal worse. Ratner had the opportunity to direct Jackie Chan in his first big Hollywood-financed film. Chan is an exceptionally skilled martial artist. He choreographs his stunts and moves at lightning speed and razor precision. He has even established an emotional logic for his stunts, and he's a fairly good director himself, having made more films in Hong Kong than Ratner has here. Chan's method, and indeed the method of most Hong Kong filmmakers, is to choreograph the action first, then film it clearly without getting the camera in the way. Instead, in all three Rush Hour films, Ratner shakes the camera around and butchers everything Chan does. Nearly every martial arts star working in Hollywood has suffered the same problem, while -- ironically -- the talented Hong Kong directors, who know how to photograph action, have ended up making "B" movies with Jean-Claude Van Damme.

When we humans walk down the street, our heads and eyes bob up and down. But our brains automatically adjust so that our vision remains constant and smooth. If you're walking along a sidewalk and your gaze fixes on a car parked at the end of the block, the car does not jerk up and down. So when a filmmaker runs through the forest carrying the camera and filming the running movement, he's not actually capturing the feel of running. He's capturing chaos. The idea of making a movie is to get into the audience's heads. So by filming smoothly and cutting when necessary -- like the blinking of an eye -- the action should be closer to what everyone can relate to. Brad Bird's Ratatouille (393 screens) offers an excellent example of this. When his rat hero Remy explores the kitchen of the restaurant, Bird's "camera" swoops around the room at top speed, but it never loses the concept of the room. We're always aware of the room and our place in it.

That's the key: space. Even though Paul Greengrass's The Bourne Ultimatum is filmed entirely with shaky-cam, the space is always clear. The old-time Hollywood action directors like Howard Hawks and Raoul Walsh understood this instinctively. Let the audience see. Most of today's "action" directors, I suspect, very simply don't understand action, so they use the shaky-cam as a way to hide their ineptitude. The lack of action and choreography is covered up in the sludge of fast film and fast editing. What's even more perplexing is that nobody ever seems to notice or complain. (One of the most poorly made movies of all time, Gladiator, actually won a Best Picture Oscar.) Audiences are apparently used to shoddy work and wouldn't know good work if it bit them. We deserve better than what we're getting. All it takes is a taste of the good stuff before the bitterness of the bad stuff comes out.

Aging martial artist Jackie Chan apparently keeps a blog, and has written the following on it, according to the AP: he's fully aware that Rush Hour, Rush Hour 2 and Rush Hour 3 all sucked. He knew they were crap when he made them, and he knows it now. (I think Richard Corliss of Time Magazine is now the last remaining person on Earth who doesn't know it -- he gave Rush Hour 3 a glowing review.) Of the first Rush Hour, Chan says "When we finished filming, I felt very disappointed because it was a movie I didn't appreciate and I did not like the action scenes involved. I felt the style of action was too Americanized and I didn't understand the American humor." Okay ... thanks for sharing. So why did he return for more of the same, after such a negative experience? Because, he says, he was offered an "irresistible" sum of money. He doesn't even bother giving a reason for the third one, apparently.

The interesting thing about all of this is that Chan seems to equate the bad humor of the Rush Hour movies with American taste, in general, as if we're a nation of people who think Rush Hour is the bar by which good taste is measured. He uses the word 'American' over and over again, when pinpointing the flaws of his various projects. Of his upcoming movie, The Forbidden Kingdom, with Jet Li, he tells us -- at least it's in advance, this time -- that the movie is no good. Why? It's "a movie made for Americans." I can't wait for the press junket for that one ...

Halloween came a little early this year, although for Rob Zombie and the folks at Dimension Films it's more like Christmas. Their reimagining of John Carpenter's classic horror flick set a record for a film opening on Labor Day weekend. After two weeks at the top, Superbad finally slipped into the number 2 spot, just above newcomer Balls of Fury. Here are the final numbers:

1. Halloween: $26.3 million
2. Superbad: $12.4 million
3. Balls of Fury: $11.3 million
4. The Bourne Ultimatum: $10.4 million
5. Rush Hour 3: $8.5 million

What's coming out this week? Glad you asked. It's a subtle melding of idiocy and firearms, the same combination that made Elmer Fudd a star. Here's what we've got:

3:10 to Yuma
What's It All About: In this remake of a 1957 film of the same name, a rancher and Civil War veteran played by Christian Bale takes on the responsibility of delivering a vicious felon (Russell Crowe) to the 3:10 train to Yuma so he can face trial.
Why It Might Do Well: The film has two strong, charismatic leads and the director of Walk the Line at the helm.
Why It Might Not Do Well: Needless to say, westerns are a tough sell.
Number of Theaters: 2,500
Prediction: $18 million

The Brothers Solomon
What's It All About: A pair of socially challenged brothers who were home schooled in the arctic race to find a woman so they can provide their dying father with a grandchild. SNL's Will Forte and Arrested Development's Will Arnett star.
Why It Might Do Well: Humor and conception mixed well for the highly successful Knocked Up, so it may work here as well.
Why It Might Not Do Well: The relatively small number of theaters is going to keep this one out of the top five (probably even the top 10). The trailer looks promising, but this is also the type of film that walks the fine line between funny and dopey.
Number of Theaters: 650
Prediction: $2.5 million

Shoot 'Em Up
What's It All About: Clive Owen stars as a gun-toting badass fighting to protect a newborn infant from an evil crime lord played by Paul Giamatti. Monica Belluci also stars as a hooker with a heart of gold who specializes in clients with a mommy fixation. Freaky.
Why It Might Do Well: Owen's character sounds like a combination of the ones he played in Sin City and Children of Men, so we know he can pull it off. Paul Giamatti as a thug? I'm dying to see this.
Why It Might Not Do Well: Don't see that happening.
Number of Theaters: Number not available, though it is a wide release.
Prediction: $14 million

Come monday morning, I'm betting the box office top five will look something like this.
1. 3:10 to Yuma
2. Shoot 'em Up
3. Halloween
4. Superbad
5. The Bourne Ultimatum

After I mentioned last week how hard it was becoming to get a perfect score on our weekly predictions, four of last week's entrants proved equal to the challenge. Way to go, gang. Here's the rundown of how everyone did:

1. Gregory Rubinstein: 16
1. Bubba8193: 16
1. Skyler: 16
1. Chris: 16
2. Lee: 13
3. Matt: 12
3. Mario: 12
3. Porcalina: 12
3. Opp-Neg: 12
4. Jasonsmusicpage: 11
5. Jaimovich: 9
5. Amano Jyaku: 9
6. JBob: 8
6. Anna07: 8
7. Ray: 7
7. Josh: 7
7. Rich Diamond: 7
7. Tek: 7

Here's how the competition works:
Please post your prediction in the comments section below before 5:00PM on Saturday. One point for every top five movie correctly named, two points for every correct placement, and one extra point for the top movie.

Prior to watching Rush Hour 3, I sat real low in my seat and took a look around the theater. This particular screening had a section roped off for critics, and everyone around us were, for lack of a better description, your average urban moviegoer. Essentially, the target audience for a film like this. My row, the one in front and one in back, consisted of white, middle-aged (or older) film critics; some of whom spoke about their tickets to an upcoming opera. And that's when it dawned on me -- these people are going to hate Rush Hour 3. Say what you want about film critics, but a 60 year-old guy in a sports jacket with tickets to the opera is not going to dig Chris Tucker making bootie jokes while trying not to direct traffic. The rest of the audience, however, devoured the Tucker/Chan shtick as if it were the best all-you-can-eat buffet in town. Sadly, I wasn't as hungry.

It took six years and millions of dollars to convince Chris Tucker to return to his most lucrative role, and fans of the actor will be happy to see him back doing what he does best: shouting ... loudly. The story is exactly the kind you'd expect from a third installment; Jeff Nathanson (Rush Hour 2) returns with a script that felt as if it were ripped out of a Food Network recipe book: 1) Take the African-American male and the Asian male, then combine using a mixture of ethnic jokes, wild stunts and predictable villains. 2) Microwave on high for 90 minutes. 3) Plate your dish, and garnish with something pretty so that the audience is convinced what they're watching is something fresh and original, instead of old, stale and repetitive. 4) Serve your meal with a smile, and cross those fingers -- $25 million is a lot of money for a piece of meat that's been sitting in the freezer for six years. Enjoy!

First off, a little business: Yesterday morning, I wrote a post regarding Edward Norton's involvement (screenwriting-wise) on next summer's The Incredible Hulk. For certain reasons (which I can't really go into), I've had to pull back the post. Sorry for the inconvenience, and I promise to update you as soon as I can.

But speaking of people who like to crush and ruin things, Brett Ratner has a new movie coming out this weekend. Rush Hour 3, you may have heard of it. I've already seen Rush Hour 3 (my review will come later this week), and it's pretty much what you would expect from an installment in the Rush Hour series. Will it entertain the hardcore fans? Most certainly. But I'd expect most critics to chalk it up as yet another uninspiring, unoriginal Ratner gem. The LA Times recently ran a story (in which yours truly was asked to contribute -- plug! plug!) asking one simple question: Why does the web hate Brett Ratner? I provided them with an answer that had to do with Ratner's consistent need to sex-up his off-screen life and then share it with the world. I don't think anyone cares how many girls Ratner sleeps with, or how many times he's visited the Playboy Mansion -- all we want from the guy is a good movie. And when we'd rather look at Ratner's newest flavor of the week over watching his latest film, that's a problem.

When I asked Cinematical's Scott Weinberg what he thought of Brett Ratner and why "the web" hates the guy so much, he said: "I don't get the praise or the hatred either way. The guy's made a bunch of profitable, mainstream, pretty bad films. If that's a crime against humanity, Ratner should be punished in line behind another 45 directors I could name. Regarding his personal life, I couldn't care less. Make good movies and I like you." But why can't Ratner make a good film? Some liked The Family Man, but I thought it was just another one of Ratner's attempts at a genre he truly didn't understand. Has the guy simply mastered the art of fast food entertainment? Case in point: Twenty minutes after Rush Hour 3 ended, I was hungry again for another, more satisfying film. He's obviously a bankable director box office-wise, but shouldn't we expect more for our dollar? Shouldn't we expect more from our directors?

Note to Brett: Stop pimping yourself out on eBay as if you're a f**king collectible Star Wars figurine, and start figuring out a way to make a compelling motion picture. It's great that you're doing stuff for charity (although 70% is kind of lame -- why not make it a full 100%?), but how about doing something for your audience too? And no, Rush Hour 4 is not an option.

The Bourne Ultimatum pulled in some righteous bucks this past weekend, setting a record for an August release, and contributing to this being the highest grossing August weekend ever. I'll pass on using any lame jokes like "Bourne again" or "Bourne to be wild," not because I'm above that, mind you, but because I've already used them all. The Simpsons Movie dropped to number two, pulling in $25 million (mmmmm, box office). Incidentally, Hairspray missed being in the top five by, well, a hair, with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix taking in just a few hundred thousand more than the musical. The numbers look like this:

1. The Bourne Ultimatum: $69,283,690
2. The Simpsons Movie: $25,110,873
3. Underdog: $11,585,121
4. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry: $10,626,345
5. Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: $9,522,220

As we work our way into August, the flow of potential mega-blockbusters has ebbed. I wouldn't say any of this week's new releases have been hotly anticipated, though Rush Hour 3 seems to be the obvious big boy, and I'm personally looking forward to Stardust. Here's what's coming out this week:

Daddy Day Camp
What's It All About: In this sequel to Daddy Day Care, Cuba Gooding, Jr. takes over the roll originally played by Eddie Murphy, and now he's launching a day camp. Zany, huh?
Why It Might Do Well: I guess there's always a market for a good puke gag.
Why It Might Not Do Well: Who's Your Caddy didn't do so well with a plot reminiscent of Caddyshack, and this one has visions of Meatballs dancing in my head.
Number of Theaters: 2,200
Prediction: $6 million

Rush Hour 3
What's It All About: Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan mix it up for a third time, officially making this buddy cop franchise a trilogy, taking the action and (hopefully) laughs to the mean streets of Paris.
Why It Might Do Well: The original Rush Hour had a $33 million dollar opening weekend, with its first sequel opening with $67.4 million. Also, Jackie Chan can be pretty amazing to watch.
Why It Might Not Do Well: It's been six years since Rush Hour 2; does the public still care?
Number of Theaters: 3,000
Prediction: $51 million

Skinwalkers
What's It All About: Warring werewolf clans fight over a half human half werewolf boy who holds the key to their species' fate.
Why It Might Do Well: It's definitely a good thing when a film helps demonstrate that torture porn isn't the only kind of horror out there.
Why It Might Not Do Well: While I have a soft spot for the sub-genre, good werewolf films are hard to come by, and the trailer didn't wow me.
Number of Theaters: 650
Prediction: $4 million

Stardust
What's It All About: Based on a book by renowned fantasy writer Neil Gaiman, Stardust is the tale of a young man who sets out into a fantasy realm to retrieve a fallen star for his beloved, only to find that the star is in fact a beautiful young woman.
Why It Might Do Well: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is beginning to run out of box office steam, so this looks like a good choice for fantasy buffs, and a cast that includes Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Claire Danes can't hurt.
Why It Might Not Do Well: I honestly can't think of a reason for this movie flopping.
Number of Theaters: 2,300
Prediction: $22 million

The writing is on the wall for this coming weekend's box office returns, and that's where I'm getting this week's prediction. It was spray-painted on the back wall of a Denny's and I took it as a sign:
1. Rush Hour 3
2. The Bourne Ultimatum
3. Stardust
4. The Simpsons Movie
5. Underdog

Last Week's Prediction Rankings:
1. Tangoeco: 16
2. Bubba8193: 13
3. Josh: 11
3. Opp-Neg: 11
3. El Borracho: 11
3. Curt: 11
3. Ness 265: 11
3. Anna07: 11
3. Dustin: 11
4. SupDugs: 10
4. Gordy: 10
5. Joe: 9
5. Marc: 9
5. Evan: 9
5. Greg: 9
5. Ray: 9
6. jasonsmusicpage: 6

Please post your prediction for the top five films in the comments section below before 5:00 PM on Saturday. One point for every top five movie correctly named, two points for every correct placement, and one extra point for the top movie. Come on, it'll be fun.

It took six years for Brett Ratner to convince Chris Tucker to return to the big screen for another go-round with Jackie Chan, and as Rush Hour 3 heads to theaters this weekend, I decided to take a look back at some of my favorite 'Buddy Cop" films, as well as ask you for yours. While a lot of people normally associate "Buddy Cop" films with lots of humor, that's not always the case. One of my favorite "Buddy Cop" films of all time -- believe it or not -- is Se7en. There you have your classic "One guy's about to retire, but has to work with the new, unpredictable recruit on one last case" set-up, but it heads in a very dark and disturbing direction. And talk about an ending -- probably one of the most memorable of any "Buddy Cop" movie in history.

But seeing as most "Buddy Cop" films are action-comedies, the majority of our favorites fall into that category. Edgar Wright's Hot Fuzz (which was, essentially, a genre parody) ranks right up with there with my favorite "Buddy Cop" flicks of all time. Not only does it poke fun at a genre we've grown to love over the years, but it's so freaking clever in the way it merges two genres (the classic British murder mystery and the high-octane action flick) into one hilarious, non-stop good time. Of course, I can't mention the "Buddy Cop" genre without giving props to Lethal Weapon, 48 Hrs. and Beverly Hills Cop (which some claim is not a "Buddy Cop" film and more of an Eddie Murphy vehicle, but I beg to differ). How does the Rush Hour franchise stack up against these gems? Not very well, in my opinion (partly because Tucker's idea of comedy is simply to talk REAL loud), but the box office was very kind to the first two installments -- so what do I know? I'll be seeing the third one later this afternoon, but until then ...

... I ask you: What are your favorite "Buddy Cop" films, and why?

When's the last time a Jackie Chan film was barred from playing in China? Probably never, although I'm hardly an expert on such things. But get this: Seems that the all-powerful Chinese Film Bureau has refused to let Brett Ratner's Rush Hour 3 open in their country. Variety indicates that "commercial reasons" are to blame -- a claim that makes little sense since both Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 did very solid business in China.

The "Bureau" is notoriously strict when it comes to certain on-screen activities, and one theory is that the censors were displeased with the plot -- which apparently involves Chinese mafia figures. More likely the members of the Film Bureau felt the same way I did about the lame, lame, lame racial humor. ("Yu! Me! No, you!" Ugh. And the French-bashing. Apparently that just never gets old.) One needs only to view the trailer to see how base and casually racist the humor is -- and now it looks like New Line (and Edko, the Chinese rights holder for the film) are about to pay for the flick's weaknesses ... through the wallet.

Edko chief Bill Kong explains the snub thusly: "The problem is not the Film Bureau, it is (state-run distributor) China Film. The schedule is very congested, and American films are doing very well around the world this year." Strange but true: China only imports 20 foreign films a year, which may help to (partially) explain why RH3 was left out in the cold. But I'm betting that's not even remotely the only reason.

Last year at this same time, I wrote a Monday Morning Poll that attempted to reveal which summer blockbuster would turn out the biggest unsatisfactory performance. Though I'm far from a negative guy (I really do hope all of this year's blockbusters provide highly entertaining moviegoing experiences), sometimes it's fun to try to pick out which film won't please the fans. Back in 2006, prior to the season's official start, I chose Superman Returns to be that film. And, from a personal standpoint, I was right. Not only did the film not live up to my expectations, but Singer's Superman just wasn't believable. He looked more suited to save the day during a fashion catastrophe than a national crisis. But that's me. That's how I felt.

This year, it's a whole different story. The majority of blockbusters are sequels, and all of them look pretty damn awesome. While Michael Bay is always an easy target, his Transformers has the words "visual orgasm" written all over it. Tacky special effects aside, it's hard for me to sit here and say anything bad about Live Free or Die Hard when the franchise has been nothing but kind to the fanboy inside me. Though early reviews are mixed, I'm certain Spider-Man 3 will win over everyone in the end. Shrek the Third, Surf's Up and Ratatouille will all cancel each other out. Regardless of the bad vibe I've been feeling, the legions of Johnny Depp fans will keep Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End from sinking. And, as much as I feel it won't be the best installment in the series, Harry Potter is Harry Potter -- the boy can't can do no wrong.

So, where does that leave us? Well, this year I'm going to drop down a tier and include films like The Simpsons Movie and Rush Hour 3. Yup, these are my picks for most disappointing blockbuster(s) this summer. Yes, The Simpsons fans (including me) have been waiting a long time for this film, but I feel it's too little, too late. The magic has passed, and it's about time we start realizing that. As far as Rush Hour 3 goes, c'mon -- Chris Tucker hasn't acted in six years, Brett Ratner can't do anything without pissing off a few hundred thousand people and, face it, Jackie Chan's shtick has gotten a little old. But that's me.

So, what do you think: Which summer blockbuster do you feel will turn out the most disappointing?

Note: Don't worry, to combat the negative, next week we'll take a look at summer surprises. So start thinking ...