–

I say, after three previous movies, if anyone’s going to this film to be surprised, they’re probably going to be disappointed. If a film creates a compelling world, knowing the plot does not matter. Call it “The Godfather Effect.”  I’ve seen those films (“Godfather I” or “II,” take your pick) dozens of times, yet I’ll always stop and watch them while couchsurfing.

Why? Great characters and a fascinatingly rich world centered on power and family.

While I’m not saying “Salvation” is “The Godfather,” I do like the world of these films. I’m seeing “Salvation” tonight with BH honcho John Nolte and I can’t wait.

Oh, and speaking of revealing too much, “Salvation” director McG tells SciFi Wire a promised nudie scene where Moon Bloodgood takes her shirt off felt gratuitous. 

Here’s Moon:

And here’s what McG told SciFi Wire:

There’s a topless scene of Moon Bloodgood that I thought was a very beautiful scene, that Moon thought was a beautiful scene, that we ultimately cut because we didn’t want to fall into any of the cliches of the genre, like “Here’s the scene where the beautiful girl takes her top off.” I thought it was a soft moment between a man and a woman that was designed to echo the Kelly McGillis/Harrison Ford moment in Witness, for God’s sake. They never touch each other; they just notice each other. But, in the end, it felt more like a gratuitous moment of a girl taking her top off in an action picture, and I didn’t want that to convolute the story or the characters.

For the cynics out there who say the studio probably pressured him into it for a PG-13 rating, McG says it ain’t so, honest Injun’: 

We were liberated by [Warner Brothers president of production] Jeff Robinov from day one, and I give you my word that there’s no way that Christian or Sam or I, for that matter, would shoot a picture aiming for a rating.

With the film hogging 81% of all ticket sales at Fandango.com as well as the covers of Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly and Wired (which Abrams guest edited), the director has just done a great sit down with Charlie Rose. 

Now Rose can be an enormous chucklehead when interviewing Hollywood types (especially pretty ones), but that doesn’t matter. Abrams is smart enough to make it interesting on his own.

He talks about the influence of Richard Donner’s “Superman,” which he says gave “a kind of legitimacy” to comic book subjects they’d never received before. Donner “respected the characters as much as the audience,” Abrams says. “They were funny. They were real.”

He remembers seeing “Superman’s” poster promising “You Will Believe A Man Can Fly,” and feeling the film delivered on that promise: It was real and made you believe its fantastic circumstances.

“Clark Kent was a character,” says Abrams. “He was no longer a comic book.

I couldn’t agree more.

For more on “Superman,” as well as Abrams on his meeting with Stephen Spielberg and Tom Cruise and his love for “Jaws,” “The Twilight Zone” and “Die Hard,” click here.

The Hollywood Reporter says the “Da Vinci Code” prequel treats The Vatican “as a fairly ‘normal’ nation-state, and not as some all-powerful SMERSH-like nemesis.”

THR:

And in the end, most of those who attacked the film before seeing it on grounds of its being anti-Catholic will have to eat their words, as the warm-hearted ending casts a rosy glow around the College of Cardinals, the papacy (sic.) and the faithful throngs in St. Peter’s Square. 

The Vatican itself seems to think the film is less a threat than “Da Vinci” was. Or maybe humor is now part of its press strategy. 

“I’ll comment only if the film production buys 1,000, 10-year subscriptions to our official newspaper,” Papal press secretary, Father Federico Lombardi, joked recently.

But there are holdouts. 

Catholic League president William Donohue wants a disclaimer placed at the opening of the picture designating it a work of fiction.

In Italy, 102-year-old bishop Monsignor Antonio Rosario called the film “highly denigrating, defamatory and offensive.”

The Hollywood Reporter, for its part, says the film is a standard thriller, more concerned with creating “a thrilling, faster-paced walk in the park” than attacking Catholicism.

In fact, Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon now works to save the church: He’s racing to rescue four top Papal candidates who’ve been kidnapped.

It contains some action sequences, including one where Steve Austin and Eric Roberts outrace an explosion, shots of Sly directing gunplay and a very low flyover from what looks like a disabled seaplane.

While the blog says Stallone has “lost 32 pounds since Rambo and currently weighs in at 180,” I don ‘t believe it.

The guy’s arms are still as big as my legs. And if you look at them closely you can see some of the faux tattoo work his character sports in the film poking out from underneath his sleeves.

The footage also gives a sense of what it would be like to work with Stallone: He seems focused, professional, and fun (expressing his pleasure with the flyover shot with the phrase, “That’s sex!”).

The video, which Sly apparently edited, also includes a little taste of what his life’s like after the day’s work has ended.

This section of the shoot took place in Rio, at a palatial home just below the famous Jesus statue.

As Sly walks back to his hotel one night, fans line the streets screaming and taking pictures from behind barricades. (They did this every evening, apparently.)

He walks through the crowd after a long day, and he’s shaking hands, posing for pictures, etc., when one young woman breaks through and mauls him with a desperate hug.

Guess that’s just what it’s like filming overseas with one of the world’s last, great action heroes.

Based on the Wildstorm/DC comics series, “Red” could see Willis playing a retired CIA black-ops badass who is forced to take action when an assassin threatens both he and his girlfriend. The film is being produced by Summit Entertainment, the studio responsible for the “Twilight” series. Willis’s deal has not been finalized, but it could be a sweet one since, as Summit production chief Eric Feig told me a few weeks ago, he sees “Red” as another potential franchise.

Not many fifty-something actors get those kinds of offers.

Willis may also play the lead in ”Scarpa,” about the real life FBI deep cover agent who helped bring down New York’s Columbo crime family from the inside.

He’s also in talks to play a detective on the trail of a murderer in “Inventory,” set for Kevin Smith’s buddy picture/cop comedy ”A Couple of Dicks” and soon-to-be seen in the futuristic actioner “Surrogates.”

That film takes place in a world where housebound humans interact via robotic surrogates. Willis plays (surprise!) a cop who must leave his home for the first time in years to investigate a string of murders. That sounds cool.

It’s interesting to see Willis going back to the kind of roles that made him most popular, much the way Sylvester Stallone has done with Rambo, Rocky and “The Expendables.”

There are very few real action heroes anymore, and even fewer who can maintain their macho into their 50s and 60s.

Alongside Stallone there may only be Harrison Ford and his fictional father Sean Connery. Does Willis have what it takes? Hollywood seems to think so.

James Cameron, Oscar-winning director of “Titanic” and self-proclaimed “King of the World” has found a new planet to conquer.

His next picture is “Avatar,” due in December. It’s the story of an ex-marine who is sent to settle and exploit an incredibly bio-diverse planet and ends up leading its indigenous inhabitants in a fight for survival.

(Leaked supposed early concept drawings may hint at why the marine feels attracted to the cause – or may just represent a fanboy’s fantasy.)

Very few details about the $200 million film have been released. ”Avatar’s” first teaser (which is probably a fanboy creation) gives away none of the groundbreaking 3-D effects Cameron has reportedly developed for the film. 

But a piece in this weekend’s New York Times collects some new intelligence from reputable sources as well as the blogosphere.

A writer from Time magazine describes the 15 minutes he saw:

“It was like doing some kind of drug,” he said, describing a scene in which the movie’s hero, played by Sam Worthington, ran around “with this kind of hot alien chick,” was attacked by jaguarlike creatures and was sprinkled with sprites that floated down, like snowflakes. 

“You feel like the little feathery things are landing on your arm,” said Mr. Quittner, who remained eager for another dose.

The web is also rife with postings from people who say, somehow, they’ve seen the film (which isn’t likely to be finished anytime before Fall).

From NYT, again:

“The special effects were mostly drawings and cartoons, but they looked 3-D still,” wrote one “planetshane,” whose particular dream involved a pirated copy of an early version.

“It was the best movie I had ever seen,” the post continued.

That type of hype is nearly impossible to live up to, acknowledges the director.

“It can’t possibly meet expectations,” said Cameron in December. “I went out, got drunk over that. 

But he still has a film to deliver. And it may be well worth seeing, given the film’s budget, the technological leaps and the fact that Cameron has pulled off the impossible before.

Shooting has been taking place in the old Spruce Goose hanger at Playa Vista where Cameron also filmed parts of “Titanic.” Visual effects are being done by Peter Jackson’s Weta Digital in New Zealand.

The NYT hints – and I think rightly so – that the first look the public will get at what Cameron’s been working on will come at next month’s Comic-Con in San Diego. How could he pass up such a perfect audience?

I, for one, hope to be there.

The summer kicks off in earnest on Friday with “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” It’s followed quickly by “Star Trek” the next week.

Both franchises are beloved totems of my youth.

I remember biking down to the 7-11 to get the latest X-Men comic just about as fondly as I do seeing “Star Trek: The Wrath of Kahn” 13 times one summer at the local Edwards theater.

That makes me wonder which I want to see more.

There’s been very little, review-wise, on “Wolverine,” even given the workprint leaked online. But yesterday, Ain’t It Cool News posted a psuedo-review that sheds some light.

It breaks down to good performances, lots of action, good fights, and an incoherent story. Sounds like half the films released last summer.

From AICN:

The finished effects are lackluster, to say the least – some really bad CGI work made me groan numerous times (especially, but not restricted to, Patrick Stewart’s cameo). The scene with Stewart looks so much better in the workprint – trying to digitally de-age him did NOT work this time around…

Good pacing, good lead performances, and some cool comic book fights overcome a non-existing story, horrible dialog (including the classic “I’m so cold…”), and criminally underdeveloped characters. It’s a fun flick, but it will never be considered one of the great comic book movies of our time (like Iron Man, Dark Knight, Watchmen, etc.).

Then there’s “Star Trek.” (I have to note the irony here of Patrick Stewart in “Wolverine” going up against a Star Trek film.)

There has been endless promotion about this project, including a batch of 15 new pictures released today. Here’s one:

And though it opens a week after “Wolverine,” “Trek’s” reviews are already in and they’re generally rapturous (see the story I did on those here.)

Subsequently, I’ve heard from colleagues who’ve seen the film and say Eric Bana is, despite the chatter, good as the villain. They also say Zach Quinto gives great Spock.

In addition, I’ve heard from multiple sources that Simon Pegg, as Scotty, steals every scene he’s in.

All of which means bupkis to the moviegoing public.

Presales on movie ticketing service Fandango have the films in a virtual dead heat, with “Wolverine” accounting for 10% of all tickets sold and “Star Trek” 12%.

I haven’t seen numbers from competing service Movietickets.com but, according to The Business Insider, Movietickets has “Wolverine” outpacing last summer’s champ “Iron Man” by a 3-to-1 ratio at the same point before its release.

Here’s one that could go really right, or really wrong.

James Marsden (“X-Men’s” Cyclops) has been cast in a remake of “Straw Dogs,” Sam Peckinpah’s 1971 classic about a mathematician who moves to his wife’s hometown for some country seclusion – and gets very little.

The film is incredibly complex and filled with controversial social commentary. Dustin Hoffman’s timid lead character is forced to confront not simply his social awkwardness but his own impotence as a cat and mouse game with a band of blue-collar locals intensifies.

They flirt with and then rape his wife (Susan George) before attacking his home. Hoffman’s character must face his own passivity and relationship to violence.

Here’s the trailer:

 –

It’s an intense character study rife with brutality, social realism and, some have said, male rape fantasy. The film received an X rating in Britain and the rape scene was edited to receive an R in the U.S.

This is a really interesting time to remake “Straw Dogs.”

The original had Hoffman’s egghead fleeing acrimony in the U.S., campus protests, etc. There was also the subtext of the Women’s Liberation Movement in his weird relationship with his wife.

Now, after 9/11 and the ensuing debates about torture, war and retribution, “Straw Dogs” is again an opportunity to get people talking.

The fact that the new film is about an L.A.-based screenwriter (original novel was about a writer) who moves with his wife to “the deep South” brings to mind all sorts of Red State / Blue State possibilities.

The remake is being directed by Rod Lurie, who brings with him his own baggage, having directed “The Contender” and created “Commander in Chief,” for TV starring Geena Davis. He is currently directing “Nothing But the Truth,” about Valerie Plame and Judith Miller.

That said, the studio backing the film is Screen Gems, which specializes in genre fair such as “Obsessed” and the “Resident Evil” franchise. This is a company much more interested in the kind of film Peckinpah originally made than the type Lurie usually delivers. 

Here’s hoping for the best.

The first reviews of JJ Abrams’ “Star Trek” hit the web today and they should please fans of the series, if not fans of Matt Damon.

How did Damon weasel his way into this?

After denying it for months, Abrams revealed to Life magazine recently that Damon was his first choice for Captain Kirk:

“…it would have been great to work with Matt – but at the end of the day, it was such a better move to cast the movie with unknowns.” 

The reviewers agree.

The Hollywood Reporter gushes that “all the familiar characters are instantly identifiable,” while the U.K.’s Daily Mail says Chris Pine plays Kirk with “real dash and charisma.” But the film’s not just for geeks who’ve already drunk the Romulan ale.

THR:

The film is so much fun, however, that it will draw in moviegoers just looking for a sensational ride. The boxoffice should beam up enormous returns.

And The Daily Mail says the film is “not only by far the best of the 11 Star Trek movies, it must rank as the outstanding prequel of all time.”

That’s breathy praise from prose that is, at times, a bit vague. But among the plot points and character details revealed are:

1. The film begins with the birth of Kirk and follows he and Spock in parallel as they mature.

2. The plot “centres on the initial dislike and rivalry, followed by respect and friendship” between the duo.

3. Eric Bana is no Ricardo Montalban. His Romulan baddie “hardly has anything to do and certainly doesn’t have any depth or sophistication of motivation.”

4. “Whole scenes are, perhaps unsurprisingly, stolen by Simon Pegg as Scotty” 

5. Time travel plays a huge role in the film. (Sounds like JJ Abrams, to me.)

These last three points come from Slashfilm.com, which has an elliptical (but more considered) take on the film. Enjoy.

Each has written and is directing an action-laden ensemble piece about a group of misfits battling a foreign dictator.

Stallone flexes, fires and wreaks havok on a South American despot

In Stallone’s case, he has an all-star lineup of B-movie badasses – including Mickey Rourke, Jason Statham, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lungren, Steve Austin and Eric Roberts – playing mercenaries on a mission to overthrow a South American dictator. 

The born-again Stallone has certainly earned his patriot’s stripes with the Rambo and Rocky films.

In a leaked character still from the film, he’s also looking more badass at 62 than most of us look at 22. (On set pics have also been released, one of which is above and the rest of which can be found at Empire.com.)

In the other corner we have recent American Idol mentor and former Mira Sorvino flame Quentin Tarantino.

Tarantino’s extracurricular activities may put him at a disadvantage, but he is a very talented director of action and has an ace up his sleeve: his heroes are fighting Hitler.

Tarantino’s WWII-era “Inglorious Basterds” stars Brad Pitt, Mike Myers, Eli Roth and Til Schweiger. It follows a group of Jewish-American soldiers dropped behind enemy lines with one explicit purpose: kill Nazis.

A recently-released featurette (below) and the film’s first trailer make it look a bit like a grindhouse version of “The Dirty Dozen.” The trailer actually has Pitt’s character demanding 100 Nazi scalps from each recruit. 

 –

So which gets your vote?