heroes Tagged Articles at Cinematical

We love it when our heroes fall for the suspicious types: the wolves in sheep's clothing, the dangerous femme fatales. It happens often in film noir and a heckuva lot in comics, and provides some of the best last-act twists and turns as our hearts palpitate along with those of our protagonists... up until the bitter end. Can't that evil love interest turn out to have a heart of gold, so we can all have a happily ever after? Sometimes, yes. Most of the time, no.

What is it about these doomed romances that we love so much? Perhaps it's the futility of it all; you can't have your cake and eat it when you're a superhero or a (wo)man on a mission to right wrongs, even if you'd rather be kissing that beguiling bad guy than fighting them, arresting them, or foiling their evil plans. Turning down a chance at love is the ultimate sacrifice for a hero or heroine to make -- it proves their commitment to the side of good. Hence, loving a villain makes a hero even more heroic. How tragic!

In what will surely spur controversy, I've whittled my favorite villain-hero romances down to the seven best pairings in cinema. No, Phantom of the Opera didn't make it. That would have been too easy. Instead, find odd couples, would-be perfect pairs, star-crossed lovers, and yes, the world's most legendary bromance after the jump.

A lot of things can bug movie fans, whether it's bad acting, cliches, or poor continuity, but there's one that annoys me beyond all others -- The Heroes Effect. Basically, the movie or television show hints and titillates at upcoming, impending conflict, battle, and awesome action. You anticipate it, wait for it, and then just as it's about to appear ... WHOOSH! It's gone. It's happened off-screen, or behind that door that just closed.

Heroes is darned good at it, making you yearn for the action, and only barely following through -- even in the finales. But when this same trend hits the big screen as well, the irks increase. This experience has been paid for; the expectations are higher. And in the case of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, it comes after a number of hours of dealing a packed, antsy theater of prepubescents. <spoiler alert>

Eric's already mentioned one of the big changes between the book and the film -- just how Harry watches the Snape/Dumbledore confrontation unfold. But what about the fight downstairs? Hogwarts wasn't picking their noses when this all went down. And most importantly -- Rowling had finally let Professor McGonagall get her fight on as she Ginny, Tonks, Lupin, Neville, etc battled the Death Eaters. Surely that's better than Bellatrix tromping around? Surely room could've been made for it. Take out a snog or two. There still would've been plenty to giggle about. The gem of the final books is seeing everyone get their due, whether that be revenge or the chance to finally see them fight and come into their own.

There's no reason for The Heroes Effect. If action is hinted, if cool things are happening -- show them! If the book's got a great scene of fighting that has McGonagall as a robe-clad Ripley, show it! If you can't ... why bother?

Before I begin doling out the rant soup with a side order of opinionated snark, I should make one thing clear: I'm not talking about films in which time travel is a central concept. The Time Machine, Back to the Future, Time After Time, Bill & Ted, Casablanca, Somewhere in Time, etc., are all exempt from the following (rather silly) rule:

Time travel sucks. And here's why:

Take the new Star Trek, for example. Or better yet, pretty much any episode of Heroes. At one point we start out on linear playing fields, an A to B to C storytelling device that, you must admit, usually works pretty darn well. But once a character stumbles onto the ability to leap through time ... I get bored. All bets are off. I'm probably going to watch something else. Why?

1. It's a screenwriting cheat: As much as I enjoyed the new Star Trek (and I seriously did), the time-twist subplot seemed ... out of place. As if it was concocted just so we could have a "logical" way for Leonard Nimoy to play an important role. Which leads to...

Remember serials? I don't, because I'm too young, and by the time I began going to the movies, it was already the practice for cinemas to stick to single, self-contained, feature-length fare. With the way screenings are arranged today, scheduled so that both theater owners and studios can get as much money from as many showings as possible, there's just no room for any accompanying shorts, especially the kind that don't end in a conclusive manner.

I'd probably be okay with being left out of that experience from the moviegoing past, but each time another Indiana Jones movie is released, I can't help but think I'm at least a little less appreciative of George Lucas' intent than some of the older folk in the audience. When Lucas thought up the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, he partly meant the film as homage to the serials he remembered from his childhood.

Yet Raiders didn't end with a cliffhanger, as most serials had on a weekly basis. And with the third sequel to that film, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, arriving in theaters this week, I still wonder why at least two installments couldn't have been connected with the serializing device. Lucas had already somewhat shown us, through the uncertain ending of The Empire Stikes Back and continuation/resolution beginning of Return of the Jedi, that it could be done.

When you consider the hoopla surrounding the cast of TV's Heroes, I can't help but wonder if James Kyson Lee (aka Ando Masahashi) ever gets a little jealous. Who knows? Maybe he needs his own hi-profile (if not slightly off-putting) real life romance to raise his celebrity profile. Sci Fi Wire spoke with Lee about his starring role in the Jason Robert Stephens' horror flick Necrosis, so maybe now he'll earn just a few more headlines of his very own.

Lee's role in Necrosis will be far from his happy-go-lucky sidekick gig on TV. Lee stars as man haunted by visions from the past, or more specifically, flashbacks surrounding the infamous Donner Party. Of course, this is a horror movie, so you can imagine that these glimpses into the past aren't going to be fun. According to Lee, his character is very similar to a certain infamous caretaker for the Overlook Hotel. Lee tells Wire, "My character carries a similar arc to [Jack] Nicholson's; it's a man's journey from the beginning to his self-destructing in front of you. For me, it was a really interesting character to play."

Necrosis (which for you vocabulary fans out there means: the death of living cells or tissues), has already started filming in Lake Tahoe on the California/Nevada border. The production started just in time for plenty of snow to help set the mood, Lee told Wire, "We were just enveloped in all this white, and there's something really serene and beautiful yet isolating and with the potential to be haunting." Necrosis is expected to arrive in theaters later this year.

My local paper, The Denver Post, ran an opinion piece this Sunday lamenting the absence of superheroes in pop culture. This is a refrain we hear just about every few years -- but I was surprised with how vehemently I disagreed with David Harsanyi's argument.

I think what bugged me most is that Harsanyi himself fails to define the hero he wants to see on-screen. Jack Bauer, who he hails as a modern ideal, is a long way from those he began by lamenting -- Superman and Captain America. He doesn't want a hero who is tormented by inner demons, but he misses the days of Rambo. So, I thought in the interests of illumination and good discussion, we should try to help Harsanyi out.

It looks like Heroes' Kristen Bell has found plenty to do now that the TV show has gone on an indefinite hiatus. Variety reports that Bell has signed for the romantic comedy When in Rome. The rom-com was written by Mark Steven Johnson, and he will also direct. The film is a bit of a departure for Johnson, who has stuck with ruining comic book properties for the most part. Hopefully a new genre is going to work out a little better for him than the superheroes have in the past.

Bell will star as "...a successful real estate agent in Gotham who can't find a lasting relationship. When her younger sister impulsively marries in Rome, she flies out for the wedding and, after picking up coins from a reputed "fountain of love," finds an overabundance of suitors waiting for her back home." Blech, when is Hollywood going to find a new kind of female lead other than the bitter career gal? So far Bell is the only name attached to the film, but now that there is a star, the rest should fall into place.

When in Rome is due to start shooting on location in Rome and in New York this March. Plus now that the writer's strike might be over, Bell could be returning to the small screen to get a least a few more episodes of Heroes in before the season is up. Rome will be produced by Disney, so if you are looking to see Bell in something with a little more 'edge' then at least you still have Judd Apatow's Forgetting Sarah Marshall hitting theaters on April 18th and Fanboys slated for later this year.

Don't get me wrong, I love a film that makes me want to drop several tabs of acid, but some of this Cloverfield marketing is a little too odd. Bunch of kids running around Manhattan, trying to escape from a monster? Okay, I get that. This whole Slusho thing? No idea. For those of you following the Cloverfield viral marketing campaign closely, you should already be aware of Slusho. It's some sort of drink that's somehow tied into the movie; it's already appeared in episodes of Heroes (for some odd reason) and now a new commercial for the drink is online. I have no idea what Slusho (whose tagline is: "You Can't Drink Just Six") has to do with Cloverfied, but I imagine the two will join forces when the film finally arrives in theaters on January 18, 2008. Is the Cloverfield monster also going to factor into the Heroes television series? Got me. But I wouldn't put anything past viral marketing guru J.J. Abrams -- he really knows how to suck you in, keep you in and then give you nothing. I kid, I kid. Anyway, check out the new Slusho commercial after the jump. Additionally, according to Shock, Cloverfield's running time will clock in at just around 90 minutes. How long does a tab of acid last?

CHUD is reporting that Michael C. Hall (star of Six Feet Under and Dexter) has signed to play the bad guy in the techno-thriller, Game, for Crank creators Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor. The film is "set in a dystopian future of implanted nano-devices, where the ultimate online simulation environment is humans remote-controlling other humans in mass-scale, multi-player online gaming. The lead character, played by Butler, is a worldwide sensation, and the top-ranked warrior in a game called "Slayers." With his every move tracked by millions, he battles to regain his identity and bring down the entire system". Hall will play the game's creator and head honcho and is described as the "guy pulling the strings". Now it could just be me, but that sounds like one heck of a cheesy premise -- yet the addition of Butler and Hall could maybe help raise the quality of the material, if only slightly.

Neveldine and Taylor are also behind the upcoming thriller Pathology starring Milo Ventimiglia from NBC's Heroes, headed for theaters on November 30th. Plus, there is still the promise of a sequel to Crank -- although it seems there has been more talk than actual progress on that particular project. Butler had signed on for the film back in May, and he is currently working on Guy Ritchie's RocknRolla and the fantasy film, Nim's Island -- followed by a role in the Untouchables prequel, Capone Rising, so there is no shortage of work coming his way. Hall is still hard at work on Showtime's Dexter, but I would guess he has plenty of time since that's what a season hiatus is for. Game will be produced by Lakeshore and is tentatively scheduled to begin shooting this January.

Is it just me, or is arguing about 'torture porn' sooo 2006? But, it's not like horror director Eli Roth has ever been one to back away from a fight. Deadline Hollywood Daily tells us about a new post on Roth's personal MySpace page in response to Entertainment Weekly film critic Lisa Schwartzbaum's take on the 'torture porn' genre. Back in July, she had written a film commentary titled 'What I Hate' and as it turns out, the lady hates 'torture porn' -- which is a term that is still not readily accepted in a lot of horror fan circles. You can read Schwartzbaum's entire editorial here, but here are some of the highlights: "It's quite simple: I hate these movies. I won't see these movies" and as if that wasn't inflammatory enough, she went on to say, "I'm not impressed with the ''quality'' of the gore or the ''wit'' of the film making. I'm not enjoyably scared; I'm horrified, and not in the way horror fans get off on, groaning and screaming with pack-mentality excitement. Instead, my horror is one of disturbance and anger: Who makes this vile crap?"

Well, Roth is someone who makes 'this vile crap', and he wasn't exactly thrilled with Schwartzbaum's take on his work. Some of Roth's response: "There is no such thing as "torture porn." It's a made up term, made up by people who don't understand these movies, who are afraid to even watch them, and who feel some bizarre sense of moral obligation to warn the public about them, despite the fact they don't watch them and never would," Then there are people like myself who grew up watching slasher flicks and just don't get what all the fuss is about. Roth will be keeping it relatively PG when he shoots his episode of Heroes: Origins this year. Of course, if you can't wait for the 'goo', Roth is still wrapping up Cabin Fever 2 (which he's producing), and there's still the possibility his big-screen version of Stephen King's Cell will hit theaters at some point in the next five years. Roth wound up his rant with instructions to Schwartzbaum to find a new line of work if she is willing to dismiss films without actually sitting down and watching them. So, as much as I might not personally be a fan of Roth, the man does have a point; don't you think?