The epic finale to the “Hangover” trilogy hits theaters May 24th, and although there’s no wedding or bachelor party this time around, the new trailer for the third installment promises plenty of crazy hijinks are still in store for the Wolfpack. Check it out below and let us know what you think.
Category: Entertainment (Page 181 of 277)
You know you’re a real fan of “Psycho,” Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 film adaptation of Robert Bloch’s 1959 novel, if your first reaction to hearing about A&E’s new series, “Bates Motel,” which premieres on March 18, was to grumble, “They’ve already done a TV show called ‘Bates Motel.'”
True enough: in 1987, NBC aired a TV movie called “Bates Motel,” which starred Bud Cort as Alex West, a fellow with a few mental troubles who shared some quality time with Norman Bates in the state insane asylum and, as a result, finds himself the beneficiary of the Bates Motel in Norman’s will. The intent was to use the movie as a backdoor pilot for a weekly anthology series of sorts, following the lives of individuals passing through as guests of the motel, but when ratings for the movie proved disappointing, the plan for the series was abandoned.
But A&E’s “Bates Motel” isn’t a retread of that premise. Instead, it’s a prequel, revealing how Norman Bates became the kind of guy who’d grow obsessed with his mother that he’d take on her identity on occasion and kill anyone who looked at him sideways.
Oh, wait, you say that’s already been done, too?
Yep, it sure has: in 1990, Showtime produced “Psycho IV: The Beginning,” which pointedly ignored the aforementioned TV movie and showed a very-much-still-alive Norman (Anthony Perkins) calling into a radio talk show about – what are the odds? – matricide, using the conversation as a framing device to flash back to his youth and reveal the bond between Norma Bates (Olivia Hussey) and her son (played by Henry Thomas). It doesn’t exactly hew 100% to the continuity established by the preceding three films, but as a standalone film for casual fins, it holds up relatively well, thanks in no small part to Perkins’ performance.
Actually, A&E’s “Bates Motel” isn’t a retread of that premise, either. Not really, anyway. I mean, yes, it starts at approximately the same point in Norman’s life, and the general idea is the same, in that it’s looking into all the Oedipal-ness of the Norma/Norman relationship. This time, though, it isn’t a period piece. For better or worse, it takes place in present day, which means that it’s arguably not a prequel at all but, instead, more of a complete reboot of the franchise.
Don’t worry, though: the Bates Motel itself still looks just as decrepit and foreboding as ever.
But, of course, “Bates Motel” is far from the first occasion of an existing property has been turned into a prequel for TV. Heck, it’s not even the first time it’s happened in 2013!
It’s another busy week for Blu-rays, so I don’t want to waste too much time here, but with so much good stuff being released over the next few weeks, you might want to plan ahead so you don’t go broke buying all the great Oscar nominees and catalog titles coming to Blu-ray. With that said, there are definitely a few movies this week that no cinephile should ignore, so read on to find out which ones they are.
“Schindler’s List”
It’s hard to believe that it’s been 20 years since the release of Steven Spielberg’s “Schindler’s List,” but even after all that time, it remains one of the director’s finest films and arguably the best movie ever made about the Holocaust. Though the film is plagued by many of the typical Spielbergian problems – namely its bloated runtime, which is even worse than usual due to the somewhat meandering pace and useless subplots – Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography is superb (it looks even better in high definition) and the acting is great all around. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes’ Oscar nominations were both fully deserved, delivering some of the best work of their careers as the heroic Schindler and psychotic SS officer Amon Goeth, respectively, while Ben Kingsley’s absence from the Supporting Actor category feels unjust in hindsight. Still, the movie walked away with seven Academy Awards that year – including Best Picture, Best Director and Best Original Screenplay – so it’s not like it didn’t receive its fair share of recognition, and now that it’s finally on Blu-ray, a whole new generation of moviegoers can finally enjoy Spielberg’s excellent drama the way it should be seen.
Blu-ray Highlight: The Blu-ray doesn’t actually feature any bonus material, but the accompanying DVD version does, although the only extra of note is a documentary from 2004 that combines archival footage with survivor interviews about the Holocaust. It’s just a pity that Steven Spielberg couldn’t be bothered to do an audio commentary.
“Wreck-It Ralph”
It’s been quite awhile since I saw an animated movie that I really loved (the kind you can watch over and over again), but Disney’s “Wreck-It Ralph” is that good. Though it was unfairly snubbed at this year’s Oscars in favor of Pixar’s mediocre fairy tale “Brave,” Rich Moore’s directorial debut has a much better chance of standing the test of time, even if the early rumors of a sequel don’t exactly fill me with glee. After all, its wildly inventive premise is one of the many things that separate “Wreck-It Ralph” from other films in the genre, and the fact that it appeals to video game fans of all ages certainly doesn’t hurt. The digital cameos lend some authenticity to Ralph’s world and are smartly integrated into the story without drawing too much attention, while the casting is pretty much spot-on, especially John C. Reilly as the title character and Sarah Silverman as his spunky sidekick. Though it would have been fun to see Ralph game-jump into more than a few games, I guess something has to be saved for the sequel, no matter how bad of an idea it may sound.
Blu-ray Highlight: Hosted by Nerdist’s Chris Hardwick, Disney’s latest Intermission feature reveals some of the film’s Easter Eggs whenever the disc is paused, but the real highlight is John Kahrs’ visually stunning (and Oscar-winning) “Paperman” short.
“Red Dawn”
As far as 1980s cult classics go, “Red Dawn” isn’t the most popular of the bunch, but it is one of the few movies to receive a remake that actually makes sense. Though it’s hard to beat the cast of the original, director Dan Bradley’s update boasts a solid group of young actors, including Chris “Thor” Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson. The only real problem is Josh Peck, who isn’t terribly convincing as the impulsive star quarterback and falls flat in many of the film’s more emotional scenes. Thankfully, the movie doesn’t rely too heavily on the strength of its characters to move the story along, but when your lead is as bad as Peck is here, it’s hard to ignore. A lot of the film’s success ultimately comes down to the excellent action sequences, and that’s where having a guy like Bradley – who worked as a stunt coordinator and second unit director on several big movies – pays off. He may not get the best performances from his actors, but the action scenes are never lacking in excitement. Granted, the movie is about as subtle as a chainsaw, but it doesn’t try to hide what it is either, and that’s what makes “Red Dawn” such a fun guilty pleasure.
Blu-ray Highlight: A review copy didn’t arrive in time, but after the film’s theatrical release endured such a long delay, it’s hard to imagine MGM going all out for this one.
I remember about five years ago, one of the horses in the Kentucky Derby caught my attention because of its name. The horse was a 50-1 underdog, so I thought it would be fun to place a bet. Of course I never got around to it, and then I was pretty bummed to see the horse pull out a stunning upset.
Given the astounding success that History Channel found with its previous based-on-stuff-that-really-happened dramatic effort, “Hatfields and McCoys,” it’s no wonder that the network is throwing such a profound promotional push behind its latest endeavor, “Vikings.” Granted, the cast of this one can’t quite compare with headline names like Kevin Costner and Bill Paxton, but don’t be so hasty to dismiss it just because you don’t know as many of the actors off the top of your head. After all, at the very least, it’s got Gabriel Byrne, who’s quite good (as anyone who’s watched him on HBO’s “In Treatment” or any number of his many cinematic efforts can handily testify), but, seriously, there’s a lot of other solid actors in the ensemble as well…like, say, Clive Standen, for instance. Bullz-Eye had a chance to chat with Standen about his work on “Vikings,” but we also managed to chat a bit about his work on “Camelot” and “Doctor Who“ as well as a slightly less fondly remembered effort called “Heroes and Villains.”
Bullz-Eye: To start with the inevitable, how did you find your way into “Vikings“ in the first place? Presumably it didn’t hurt that you’d already worked with the creators.
Clive Standen: It was a long process for me. I was fighting them, kicking and screaming, to try and get seen for this. [Laughs.] I was filming with one of the producers of Vikings, Morgan O’Sullivan, when I did “Camelot,” and I remember him and Michael Hirst talking about it quite a lot then as a new, exciting project they’d been working on for ages. Michael had been invested in the Viking saga for a long time. Right from the beginning, I think they were looking for big names, and they had their kind of wish list, with people like Viggo Mortensen and…well, it was a completely different breed. And I was stuck in “Camelot,” and I was just so jealous. When “Camelot” was finished, I was writing letters and, as I say, kicking and screaming, saying, “Can I get seen for it?” And they wanted to see me for Rollo, which is the part that I played, but for some reason I went on this whole journey of doing screen tests and things for the part of Ragnar. At the very end, though, they offered me Rollo, which was the part that I wanted in the first place, so I must say it made me very happy.
FOLLOW US!
CATEGORIES
© 2026 Bullz-Eye Blog
Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑