What Exactly is Triple Frontier?

There is a new film brewing in Hollywood and it's a big one. In time you will hear lots about it, so consider this the preview to the hype. It's called "Triple Frontier" or "Sleeping Dogs" no one seems to confirm the title, but for now we'll go with the first option because "Sleeping Dogs" sounds like a sequel to "Marley and Me." Wait, did I say, this is a preview to the hype? Sorry, this is the start of the hype train.

Simply put "Triple Frontier" is the follow up to the Academy Award winning "The Hurt Locker." To be directed by Kathryn Bigelow, the script by by "Hurt Locker" scribe Mark Boal, focuses on the piece of land featured above.  What's so special about this little piece of land? Evil bad dudes love it. According to Wikipedia, the area, kind of a neutral zone between three countries is hard to police and therefore it's a hot bead of organized crime, and not just South American drug lords, recent reports indicate an Islamic Extremist presence as well. So basically it sounds like "The Hurt Locker" minus the sand.

The talent behind the camera is enough to get excited but the cast coming together for the project is equally impressive. Yesterday it was announced that Tom Hanks will be in the film and it remains to be seen if we will be getting noble ass kicking Tom Hanks (see left) or noble diplomatic Tom Hanks (See "Charlie Wilson's War"). Other rumors have pegged Johnny Depp as a cast member, but those aren't confirmed. I mean a Depp-Hanks team up would be thrilling.

Bigelow is a masterful director, "The Hurt Locker" is an incredibly gripping film and "Point Break" is on the list of 80's action films that are awesome because they are just great films, not great "80's" films. But I have to point out that after last year's Academy Award race vs her ex-husband James Cameron, I can't help but think in some corner of her mind she wants to go make a movie in the jungle too. Hopefully her film will be rooted in spec-ops military government espionage goodness and won't involve blue-people**

*That isn't a knock on Avatar, Avatar is still the shit.

Angels And Demons: A Great Movie (If It Was On The History Channel)

"Angels & Demons" film feels like a phoned in history channel thriller that librarians watch with a cup a chamomile tea when they want to have an exciting break from reading Proust. The thrills aren't really that exciting, there is plenty of talking to calm the nerves, and enough history to help a 10th grader pass his Catholic history test. It's a shame, because the book of which it is based is a gripping page turner.

I knew the movie wasn't going to deliver on the summer OS (ohhhhhhhh shitttttttt moments, see previous posts) when in the beginning four people are kidnapped, one dude is a killed, and one eyeball is removed and all I got was some cheesy Natural History museum special effects on anti-matter. This is a summer movie, I got popcorn covered in butter in my lap, gimme something exciting here!

Like a family bogged down with toddlers in the Rome, the film slowly moves along through Rome and Vatican as T. Hanks solves the mysteries. He needs to take some clues from my main meng Jack Bauer, because while the bad guy says a Cardinal will die every hour and then EVERYONE will die at midnight, T. Hanks still has the time to take showers, change his clothes, and talk about history (all things that matter not to Saint Bauer).

All in all, as someone who read the book, has been lucky enough to have been to the Vatican, "Angels and Demons" doesn't deliver the thriller goods. Thank God the 24 finale is tonight.

Watching Movies Based On Books You've Already Read

The image above is ambigram, which means if you turn you head (don't strain your neck) it will look the same upside down. It comes from the book Angels & Demons by Dan Brown, which the film that comes out today is based off of. I have read the book, and like all Dan Brown books I found it to be extremely enjoyable in a trashy page turner way. Yet with the movie coming out today, I just don't feel that jazzed about it because I know every twist and turn of the story. How this knowledge of the plot impacts my enjoyment is a different question.

It all comes down to the presentation. It starts with casting. The characters have to kind of fit with the way you imagine them. Harry Potter, dude looks exactly like I thought he would like. Tom Hanks as Robert Langon, ahhhh, he's too nice, Langdon as I pictured him was a little bit more Clooney. Then it comes down production design. This part is either cooler or as I pictured it would be in the book.

And finally in true TPG fashion it's gotta have that "ohhhhhhhhhhhhhh shittttttttt" (usually followed by me punching the arm of the person next to me) action moments as I pictured them from the book. For example, in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", I envisioned the battle between at the Ministry almost exactly as it was presented in the book, I was satisfied (except for the bit about the statues not coming to life, but whatever, Harry Potter nerds sometimes have to settle for a Nimbus 2000, when you want a Firebolt).

So "Angels and Demons," I'll give you a chance, but you deliver that on that presentation (and those ohhhhhhhhhh shittttttttttt) moments, I'll be pleased.