HooperCast Episode 7: Friends With Benefits review and special New Year's show!

Hey guys! This week, on a very special HooperCast, a detailed review of "Friends With Benefits",

and then a few honest words about the new year, responsibility, and friendship. 

Enjoy the serious turn this episode takes!

PLEASE DONT LISTEN IF YOU DONT WANT TO HEAR CURSING!

R-RATED MOVIE=R-RATED REVIEW!

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!

HooperCast Episode 6: The Muppets! with special guests Dustin Weldon and an appearance by the lovely Tara Gebhard!

Dustin and I embark on what becomes an hour-long quest to review

"The Muppets" and we are joined briefly by the lovely Tara Gebhard.

Enjoy. All day long.

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREEEEEE

HooperCast: Episode 5: An Entertaining Sound Check with Dustin Weldon

Meet my friend Dustin, who will join me in the future to review "The Muppets" whenever I get around to it.

This started as a sound check for Skype, and turned into a discussion of theme parks, art, and upcoming movies. Enjoy

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!

HooperCast: Episode 4: Twilight

Enjoy?

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!!!

HooperCast: Episode 3: The Way

Enjoy!

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!!!

HooperCast Episode 2: The Change-Up

Another Episode! Mild cursing towards the end. I warned you. 

Would you like to listen to this on your mobile device? I thought you might:

DOWNLOAD THIS EPISODE FREE!

HooperCast Episode 1: Piranha 3D

Look, there's mild cursing in here. If you can't stomach it, don't listen. There: A disclaimer.

NOW DOWNLOADABLE!!! click here to download!

HooperCast Episode 0

'Green Lantern' Review

I’ve wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailers. Even that first one, which most people were iffy about. The effects weren’t done and an awful lot of it seemed to take place before Hal gets the ring. I saw that awesome 4-minute WonderCon trailer. I saw the final trailer, heard the initial critical reaction, as well as the comments of my peers. A number of people did not like the film and felt that it had underperformed. This film has a shocking 26% on Rotten Tomatoes. For the record, I did not seek out this information. I overheard it. Despite it all, there was one that stated his enjoyment of the film, despite shortcomings that seemed to overall not get in the way of the film’s fun. Because of this, I continued my interest in seeing this film.

I was not disappointed.

The movie opens with a narration by Tomar-Re, who explains the origins of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force who patrol the universe and protect it. They harness green energy, of which there is basically an unlimited amount on their planet headquarters, Oa. They each wield a green Power Ring, which is powered by the wearer’s strength of will. The opening narration does a much better job of setting this up than I probably am.

 

It also sets up the Parallax, a malevolent force consisting of pure fear. It is shown battling and wounding Green Lantern Abin Sur, who escapes and lands on Earth, instructing the ring to seek out a successor for him. 

We are then presented with Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds, his exceptional smart-assness underplayed), an overconfident, reckless pilot. Hal seems to adopt this cockiness for two reasons: First, because he has the skill to back it up, and second, as a defense mechanism against the fearful memory of the day his father died. Hal is chosen by the ring and taken to the wreckage of Abin Sur’s ship, where he is given the ring and his lantern. He is eventually taken to Oa, where he meets other members of the Corps, including Kilowog (unimaginatively voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan) and Sinestro (Mark Strong). They train him and teach him how to use his ring, which turns his thoughts into tangible reality. Without giving away too much of the plot, we are also introduced to Hal’s fellow pilot and love interest Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) and scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard). At a certain point, the Parallax comes to Earth to destroy it.

I am pleased to report that I liked this movie very much. More than I thought I would. Let’s start with the actors. Ryan Reynolds was good as Hal Jordan. I was kind of glad that he didn’t spout off a large arsenal of one-liners and witty jokes. It made Hal Jordan seem more like a character and less like Reynolds himself. He is the movie’s focus, and as such, he should be convincing enough for us to want him to succeed. He does indeed. Peter Sarsgaard is marvelous as Hector Hammond. As a piece of the Parallax slowly infects his body, we see him descend beautifully from innocent brilliance into deranged madness. He brought a fresh take on a character that could have been far less interesting to watch on screen. Kudos as well to Mark Strong for completely embodying Sinestro. They nailed his character and I can’t wait to see him in a sequel.

Let’s talk about Blake Lively: The Elephant in the Room. I’ve heard a couple of complaints about her in this movie, and I’ll admit I was worried that she would not be great in it, but she does just fine. I wouldn’t say she didn’t have a lot to do, because she had enough. She didn’t have to display a wide range of emotion, so maybe that’s why she did just fine. Honestly, she got the job done and though they probably could have gotten someone better for this role, they certainly could have done much worse than Blake Lively. Especially in this film. Any issues anyone might have with her this time around has zero effect on the movie. Don't worry.

The special effects are amazing in this film. The world-building is incredible. Bringing Oa to the screen was a success, not to mention the Parallax, which is absolutely breathtaking to look at. It was essential that they nail this aspect of the film, since so much of it takes place in outer space. Aside from a few bad green screen shots, the outer space stuff looked great.

I also want to note the flying sequences in this film. It’s always fun to see movies depict flight and to see filmmakers keep pushing for realism of motion. What they did for this film was put Ryan Reynolds on wires and actually shoot him “across the room at 200 miles per hour.” The idea was to capture the correct movement of flight: How your body responds to flight, how your feet move, etc. It really comes across as realistic movement in the film. The action sequences are incredible. It can be a trap in films like this to let the action get repetitive, but there is also a chance, with fantasy and comic book movies, to make unique action and to take it to the next level. This film does that. I think a big reason is the fact that Hal Jordan can fight in outer space, or really, the fact that he has the ring. It’s such a unique weapon to have and the filmmakers really took advantage of the kind of action they could show with the resources this story offered. The action is engaging and inventive. And new. They showed me something I’ve never seen before. That alone is worth its weight in gold.

I think a strong reason why I like this film so much is its message: Don’t be afraid. Hal Jordan’s power comes from courage. Not brute strength, not advanced weaponry. Courage. His strength literally comes from within. Even against an enemy as terrifying (and I mean it really is absolutely terrifying) as the Parallax, the way that Jordan prevails is by overcoming fear and relying on his strength of will. I really love messages like this in movies. They push a positive moral truth and teach it through fantasy action, showing this ideal in motion. I think we can all identify with the feeling of fear and how crippling it can be. Even the smallest bit of fear can grow itself within you and control you. But if you rise above the fear and refuse to be its victim, you can accomplish great things.

I’m glad the ring chose Hal Jordan. And I’m glad this movie chose me. Fun. New. Full price ticket. I may even go see it again. Strongly recommended.

'The Hangover: Part II' review.

OK look, I’ve been sitting here for about 3 days amid all my other work, trying to find time to write a nice, balanced review of The Hangover: Part II. The kind of review I try to write: Opinionated, but with a caring touch of unbiased reporting. But in the interest of getting this review out while people will still read it, I’m just going to free write.

Bottom line: The Hangover: Part II is not as good as the first one. That statement doesn’t carry much weight. There are plenty of good sequels that aren’t as good as the originals. Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (which I liked better than the first one), Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, etc. But those sequels are all still good movies. They had a high bar set for them. In the realm of worthy sequels, this movie does not belong.

The movie revolves around the wedding of Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to Lauren (Jamie Chung). Along for the wedding are of course Phil (Bradley Cooper, still delightfully snarky) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Because of the events of the last movie, Stu doesn’t want a bachelor party. Instead, he finally agrees to have one beer on a beach by firelight with his friends and his fiance’s 16-year-old brother Teddy (newcomer Mason Lee). Of course, it turns out not to be just one drink and the gang wakes up the next morning in a shady hotel room in Bangkok, and Teddy is missing. Hilarity ensues, a couple of times.

Before you dismiss my opinion, let me first say that it pains me to review this movie as negatively as I do. It does. I loved the first movie. I own the first movie. I’ve watched it repeatedly. The characters carried with them a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie. That camaraderie is completely absent in this movie. This is especially true of Alan, who in the first movie was kind of an affable idiot. But here, he’s not so much stupid as he is just mean and despicable. I actually didn’t have any problems with Phil. He is the same as he was in the first movie, but then again, we don’t learn anything new about him in this movie. In the first movie, he plays it off like he hates his life, but at the end, we see that he actually loves his family. We see Alan find friends. We see Stu develop the self-confidence to break it off with his abusive cheating girlfriend. In this movie, it’s like Stu has re-developed his insecurity in relation to Lauren’s father, who does not like him and openly insults him. This feels crowbarred in just so that Stu can have an arc. Stu is very much the main character in this film, and it feels weird because the movie should be about the three of them, just like the last movie was. And it wants to be about them all, but there just isn’t enough story there for the three of them.

It’s tough not to compare this film to the first one, but it compares itself to the first one. All the time. They probably figured that people would react negatively if they did not reference the first film, since the premise is so similar. That’s the biggest problem. This film is almost an EXACT COPY of the first film, which would have been fine if it was FUNNY, but it isn’t that funny. What they should have done was try for something different, and find the humor in that. At least then even if it wasn’t funny, they would have done something different. Fail on one level instead of two. They failed on both levels here. It’s like they didn’t even try. Every big laugh in the movie is there just for laughs. It doesn’t feel real. I know that all the circumstances of these movies can’t be taken completely seriously, it’s a comedy. That’s not what I mean. Even in the first movie, everyone reacted realistically to their extraordinary circumstances. In this one, that doesn’t happen and at least for me, it takes me out of the movie.

******SPOILERS*******

Okay, I have to reveal plot details to further explain my point. If you’ve already seen the movie, or don’t care, keep reading this section.

Let me point out the major problems (that I haven’t stated) with this movie in detail. In no particular order.

1. Alan: Alan is not lovable in this movie. He does not like Teddy and is threatened by him to the point that he tries to drug Teddy so that he can’t have fun with the guys. Yes, once again, Alan is responsible for the wild night. Even though he denies it early in the film, it was him once again, and it is not surprising at all. Again, there’s a lack of originality here. Why couldn’t they find another reason for the wild night, other than Alan supposedly meaning well? At least in the last film, he meant to slip ecstacy in everyone’s drinks so that they’d have fun. It turned out to be roofies, thus explaining why no one could remember anything. In this one, it was ADD medicine and cough syrup, I believe. ADD medicine is a cardiac stimulant. Neither it nor cough syrup would make someone completely forget their night. And this time around, he didn’t do it to help his buddies have a good time. He attempted to incapacitate Teddy, messed up, and ended up drugging them all. Thankfully there’s a moment in the film after he admits this where both Phil and Stu get angry with Alan for this and threaten to not be friends with him anymore, but it’s not treated with much weight. I’d never speak to this guy again if it were me.
2. Mr. Chow: I loved Mr Chow in the first movie because Ken Jeong was a great side-gag character. But that’s what he should have stayed: A side-gag character. In this film, he’s much more important to the “plot” in this movie. They seem to have taken his best jokes or Chow-isms from the first movie and blended them together to spit them back out incessantly in this movie. It’s funny until you realize that you want it to stop trying so hard.
3. Stu: Here is one example of a moment where they sacrifice character for laughs. One of the things that happens in the movie is that apparently Stu played the catcher in male gay sex with a pre-op She-male. Funny right? No. Just uncomfortable. What’s worse is that it doesn’t make sense that Stu would do that. In the first movie, Stu marries Heather Graham, a stripper. He does this because it reflects his desire to break free from his abusive girlfriend. Here, it makes ZERO sense and I couldn’t really laugh at it because it just seemed like a shameless grab for a gross-out laugh. Stu isn’t gay. Even really drugged up, it doesn’t make sense that he would consent to have sex with a man.
4. Teddy: I’m sorry, but this kid was not funny. Then again, he’s barely in the movie. He loses a finger in the course of the night’s happenings. When they finally find him and take him back to his father’s house for the wedding, his father is furious. It’s understandable. This kid is sixteen years old, he’s his father’s most prized possession, and his finger is gone forever. That’s right. They didn’t keep the finger and then re-attach it. This kid, who plays the cello, has permanently lost his finger. Yet, he is not at all concerned about it. I’d be really pissed and I’d never hang out with these people again. I wouldn’t tell Stu that “even though I don’t remember anything from last night, I was happy.” NO. That’s stupid. And that doesn’t even make sense.
5. The photos at the end.: At the end of the first movie, Alan comes up to the guys, announcing that he looked at his camera and it was full of telling photos from the night. This made for a very funny montage during the end credits that both explained what happened and was funny. Obviously, since they felt every need to copy the first film, they do this again in this movie, but it feels SO FORCED. Teddy walks up to them and says that he charged his phone and it is full of pictures from the night. Ugh.

******NO MORE SPOILERS*****

I wouldn’t go see this movie in theaters. There’s no need. I’m having a hard time deciding whether or not to recommend it at all, even for rental. Look, you’re probably going to see it anyway, and this movie has already made a crapload of money. But I really don’t recommend it at all. As hard as it is to believe, I really don’t think it is worth seeing. I’ve even heard some critics say that it ruined the first film for them because it made them question the creative choices of Todd Phillips.

Do what you want. But I didn’t like this movie. I agree with those who would say that if you liked the first movie, don't see this one.

The Hangover Part II is playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see it at the Carmike or Hollywood theaters.

'Bridesmaids' was a long ceremony with good food.

It’s difficult to describe my overall impression of Bridesmaids. I wouldn’t say it is a great movie. I wouldn’t say it is a bad movie. It’s simply…..meh.

The movie is directed by Paul Feig (Feeeg), the creator of Freaks and Geeks, a highly overlooked show, and co-written by Kristen Wiig of Saturday Night Live fame, who also stars in the film. The people involved in this project had me sold when I first heard about it. Not to mention the other players involved, including Maya Rudolph (SNL), Wendi McLendon-Covey (Reno 911), and Ellie Kemper (The Office).

In the film, Annie’s (Wiig’s) life kind of sucks. Since her baking business failed, she works in a jewelry store and is a poor saleswoman. Poor in both senses of the word: She makes a horrible salary and anytime she might make a sale, she informs the customers of how worthless an engagement ring is because your lover will just cheat on you or break your heart. Meanwhile, she can’t make the rent for her apartment and is on the verge of being kicked out by her roommate and his freeloading sister. Her love life is nonexistent, and she gets by with frequent sexual romps with Ted (Jon Hamm) who doesn’t actually like her, but uses her for sex and then kicks her out. When Annie’s best friend Lillian (Rudolph) gets engaged, she asks Annie to be her maid of honor. From here, we’re introduced to Helen Harris (Rose Byrne), the “other best friend.” You know, the friend your best friend met recently whom she is very close to and since you two don’t hang out as much, she considers this friend to be special and it’ll be awkward when you two meet? That friend. What do you think happens when the best friend and the other best friend meet, especially when they’re both insecure about how important they are to the bride? They compete for her affection. 

In the midst of this tension, we’re introduced to the other bridesmaids. There’s Becca (Kemper), who is a newlywed and unintentionally makes Annie feel worse about her own crappy love life. There’s Megan (Melissa McCarthy) the groom’s blunt, tomboyish sister. And there’s Rita (McClendon-Covey), who is married with three sons and hates it. We’re also introduced to Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), a cop who takes a liking to Annie, and maybe she likes him too because he’s actually a nice person who treats her well.  All along the way, numerous things happen in the course of planning the wedding, the dresses, the bachelorette party, and the bridal shower, all while Annie tries to keep her life together in the midst of Helen trying to one-up her as “best friend.”

There aren’t really many distinct positives or negatives about this movie. It really depends on your taste. It’s subjective, like all comedies. I’ve heard critics who praised the movie because it was funny. I’ve also heard critics who saw Wiig’s character as a completely despicable bitch and resented the fact that the movie wanted us to like her. I’m more on the side of praise. My problems with the movie have nothing to do with Wiig’s character. I see her as a tremendously flawed woman who has a lot of issues that she selfishly projects onto those around her. She is not, however, unlikable, and certainly not despicable. She is flawed. Whether you agree with me or not, it doesn’t matter. I have no stake in the success of this movie. No one has a gun to my head telling me to make excuses for this character and her horribleness. It’s my opinion. She is flawed, but I still like her. Most of the “bitchy” things she does in the movie are indeed bitchy, but they’re performed in a comedic context. For those who would retort, “but this needs to take place in the real world, no matter what the genre is”, well, it does, and she gets her real-world comeuppance. So don’t stress about that.

My issue with the movie is its comedy. This film was sold to me on the condition that it was not a chick flick (it wasn’t), it was raunchy enough for a male audience (it was) and that it was funny (it was). It was just kind of long in some parts. For anyone who watches Saturday Night Live, they know the sketches of Kristen Wiig. They’ve seen her quirky characters and her talent for uncomfortable humor. They also see how the sketches carry on FOREVER. I’m not a naysayer. I love Kristen Wiig. She is a talented and funny woman. But I also think sometimes her sketches lose steam because they just keep going with the joke. This happens a number of times in the movie and the audience got bored and sort of got sick of laughing at the same thing over and over again for 5 minutes. I’m not exaggerating. 5 minutes of the same joke. It really messed with the pacing of the film and pace is an important thing for a comedy. It can’t be boring at any point, and God bless it, but this film was boring in several points.

But it has its merits. The cast is funny and I must give the film credit for bringing together these talented women. Even though some of the bridesmaids are underused, they are funny. But the trailer gave me the impression that they would be more present in the movie. Among them is the great Melissa McCarthy, who shines in this movie. When I saw her in the trailer, I kind of cringed. She seemed like she was cast to be the goofy fat friend to cut to for a quick joke, the female Chris Farley. Now, she was that, but she was so much more in this movie. She actually had a character with some depth, and the funniest scenes involved her. Keep an eye on her. She was probably my favorite character.

Overall, I’d go see Bridesmaids, but if you’re going to see it, do what I did. Go to a theater that sells matinee tickets for $3. Since a lot of you won’t get to do that, rent it. It's tough for me to say that, because I want films like this to succeed, and it has, but this is not one of those films that you need to see in theaters. If you still want to, by all means, do it. Bring your friends. You’ll probably laugh. It’s not a bad film. For the record, I admire it for bringing the male and female audiences together. It succeeds on that level. It just forgot to be funny enough for both audiences. 

Bridesmaids is now playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see the film at the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas. 

Movies to see this summer: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II'

What it’s about:
Harry, Ron and Hermoine (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson) continue their final push to locate the Horcruxes and destroy Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes).

Why you might not excited about it:  

There aren’t really many complaints about the Harry Potter film franchise except for discrepancies between the books and the movies. That’s inherent in any book adaptation. 

However, some people did not like that Part I was “too slow and boring.” I don't think it was, but I can see why some people feel that way. There was a heck of a lot of sitting in the woods and debating the next move. But that’s what happens in the story, and it’s character building. There’s a lot of conflict in those scenes and a lot is going on between the characters. Sorry there wasn’t a battle in the middle of all that, but that would have pissed off a lot of people.

And to the people who complain that Part I just felt like a big set-up for Part II, well, it kind of is. That’s why they’re called Part I and Part II. I understand that films should be judged on their own and not based on what comes before or after it, but this is a series. One book/film affects each book after it. That’s the sheer beauty of the stories. Trust me, everything in Part I is just as important as its payoff in Part II.

Why you should be excited for it: 

Listen, if you’ve stuck with the franchise this far, you obviously don’t need me to tell you why this movie will be awesome. This will be the final film of the series and we finally get to see the climactic Battle of Hogwarts. Like I said, there’s not much I can say that you’re not already aware of.

For those who have issues with the pace of Part I, fear not. Part II is going to be much more action-oriented. Plus, everything(not only from Part I but the series as a whole) gets a payoff. I don’t want to talk about too much, having read the books myself, but I will say that this movie should be a satisfying conclusion to this incredible series.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mObK5XD8udk

The film opens everywhere on July 15^th. Mobile residents can see the film in 2D and 3D in the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas.

'Thor' is a thunderous hit

It’s ironic, the path this film has traveled. From Norse myth came Thor, the god of thunder and comic book character for Marvel Comics. A larger-than-life figure, Thor works well in a comic book, with other fantasy characters. When this film was announced, many people (including myself) were extremely skeptical of the idea. How could someone present Thor as a character in the real world and to be taken seriously, while still keeping the fantasy that makes him who he is? Furthermore, director Jon Favreau (Iron Man), when asked why he wasn’t directing The Avengers, said that one reason was because Iron Man is a very tech-based character and that’s how he chose to approach the films. This approach made Iron Man a serious character, not something tongue-and-cheek. Favreau did not believe he was the man for The Avengers because this tech-based approach worked for Iron Man, but he wasn’t sure if it would apply when a super-soldier came into the picture, or a god, for that matter. Tony Stark is a gifted inventor. Thor is a god endowed with supernatural powers.

That’s the major conflict in bringing Thor to the screen: Getting your audience to take him seriously.

And this film delivers. Chris Hemsworth is perfectly cast as Thor, son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and heir to the throne of Asgard. The Asgardians have recently waged war with the Frost Giants of Jotunheim in order to stop the FGs' conquest to control the Nine Realms. In present day, when Thor is about to be made king, the Frost Giants break into Asgard, violating their treaty with the Asgardians. Against Odin’s command, Thor travels to Jotunheim with his companions and his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleson). As a battle ensues, Odin shows up in time to save the group and to hear that the Frost Giants are pissed and that a war is coming. Upon returning to Asgard, Odin strips Thor of his powers and his hammer, putting an enchantment on it that only he who is worthy enough to lift the hammer will possess the power of Thor, and banishes Thor to Earth for disobeying him and endangering Asgard. Once on Earth, in New Mexico, Thor meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), her mentor, and Darcy (Kat Dennings), her assistant. Somewhere in there, without revealing plot details, Loki reveals himself to be the villain. I don’t want to give you too much.

The biggest worry I had about this film was that I wondered how they were going to incorporate ancient Norse language with present-day language and how the two would mesh. I was also afraid that the humans in the film would not react appropriately to Thor. He is, after all, a fish out of water and every time he talks about being from Asgard and being the god of thunder that they’ve all read about in mythology, people should react like he’s crazy. I was not disappointed, because they hired Kenneth Branagh. For those of you who don’t know, Kenneth Branagh played Professor Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Much more importantly, he has played numerous characters from Shakespeare on both stage and screen. If anyone was going to be able to make age-old dialogue resonate in present-day America, it was going to be this man. He was the perfect choice to direct this film. He made sure the two things I was most worried about never came to pass. Thor is indeed treated like any normal person would treat him: like a lunatic. And why shouldn’t they? They have no proof that anything he’s saying is true.

The best thing this film has going for it is the relationship between Thor and Loki. First off, both actors are fantastic in their roles. Tom Hiddleson makes Loki amazingly sympathetic. You’d think of him as really just a victim of circumstance and favoritism on the part of his father, who always seemed to pick Thor above him, even for the throne of Asgard. This relationship between them drives the entire plot. Again, I don’t want to give details away. You know Thor is the good guy, you know Loki is the bad guy. I won’t tell you how and why.

I want to also address another issue that a lot of you might be worried about. Iron Man 2 was the first Marvel movie that was made after The Avengers was announced. As such, it was riddled, absolutely BOMBARDED with tidbits relating to the Avengers (specifically Captain America, and Thor after the credits) or S.H.I.E.L.D. (the Strategic Homeland Intervention ahhhhh whatever), who will bring the Avengers together. This would not have been a bad thing, except that each “clue” felt like a wink to the audience, and then an elbow prod, and then a “Eh? EH? See what I did there?” It would not be fair of me to not mention that not everyone feels this way, and I wish I was in that group of people, because then it would not have taken me completely out of the movie. But I’m not, and it did. The beauty of Thor is that SHIELD’s involvment in it does not distract from the story in the least. In fact, I wanted more. That’s exactly how it should feel. SHIELD is integral to the plot here and any mention of the other Avengers is welcome and just makes it all feel like it’s coming together, which is what I think we all hoped for.

I must mention the weak points, but I won’t linger on them. Natalie Portman was just okay for me in this film. But let me say, that’s not really her fault. There wasn’t really much for her character to do besides discover the Bifrost (the wormhole that connects Asgard to Earth) and fawn over Thor. She is not completely devoid of character, though. I guess I just expected more from her performance, but it is not at all bad. Also, those hoping for a huge action climax won’t get their wish. Now wait, I didn’t say nothing happens, just don’t expect Thor to fight a ton of minions or something. What is important is the character climax. Thor sees Loki for what he is and the brothers come to a head. Too often in comic book movies, (except in the Spiderman franchise, which is awesome) the filmmakers try to crowbar a reason for a huge fight into the film, and it can feel inorganic. If that’s your thing, fine. This won’t satisfy that need, but everything that happens in this film happens as it probably would in reality.

Thor is a terrific film and everyone should go see it, especially if you’re as excited for The Avengers as I am. Thor is playing in theaters everywhere in 2D, 3D, and IMAX. Again, Mobile residents can see the film in the Carmike and Hollywood theaters.

Movies to see this summer: July 1st, 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'

What it's about:
The Autobots and Decepticons search for a Cybertronian spacecraft on the Moon to use against each other in their final battle against each other.

Why you might not be excited about it:

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Your interest in this movie probably depends heavily on your impression of the one before it. A lot of people did not approve of the second movie, whether because of the story, the pacing, or a certain pair of characters. Whatever the reason, Revenge of the Fallen was massacred by critics, reportedly becoming director Michael Bay’s worst-reviewed film. People who know this might not be jazzed (see what I did there?) for this film.

Michael Bay. Apart from this franchise, but also because of it, there are people out there who do not like Michael Bay’s films. Michael Bay has a distinct style, and as such, he is often the subject of numerous parodies and caricatures. He is often included in videos such as “What if (insert distinct director) directed this commercial?” wherein the video parodies directors such as M. Night Shyamalan, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Tony Scott, and Bay himself. Bay is notorious for being portrayed as a director who needs only copious amounts of hot women and big explosions to satisfy his own creative needs.

Why you should be excited for it:

Michael Bay. First of all, even if you believe that Bay is merely the one-dimensional human being described above, you must admit that no one does it like him. That being said, Bay is more than that. From what I’ve seen, Bay is a perfectionist who works very hard to make his movies entertaining and cohesive. I enjoy Michael Bay’s films for what they are and I am never disappointed. Face it, the reason you’re seeing this movie is to watch giant robots fight each other and blow stuff up. No one could accomplish this better than Michael Bay. He has my full support as a director.

Megan Fox is gone. Personally, I had no problem with Megan Fox, but a lot of people (even those who like the films) did. Following some below-the-belt personal shots at Michael Bay, Fox was fired by Paramount and replaced. Bet she didn’t see that coming. So for all those who did not like her character, her acting, or her character’s lack of relevance or importance to the overall story, fear not. This has changed. Her replacement is an English model and first-time actress named Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who was picked above all other actresses for a reason. But honestly, is Sam’s love interest really going to affect the story as a whole?

It’s Transformers!!! For the third and final time, we can see the Autobots fight the Decepticons, complete with mid-air transformations and fight sequences. The fights were great in Transformers, and say what you will about Revenge of the Fallen, but the action sequences were amazing in that movie. It’s only logical that Dark of the Moon would go even bigger with the action, and that’s why the movie will receive my full-price admission.

This movie is going to be awesome.

Check out the trailer on Apple.com: download the 720p Quicktime file. It looks amazing.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/transformersdarkofthemoon/

Movies to see this summer: June 24th, 'Cars 2'

What it’s about:
Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and Tow-Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) embark on a quest for the World Grand Prix, but Mater gets tangled up in a spy game of his own.

Why you might not be excited about it:

Some people are wary of sequels, especially if they don’t buy the story. The plot of Cars 2 may throw people off simply because it could seem like quite a jump from the first movie. Going from the story of a car learning to be selfless to a car-spy movie may be too jarring.

Larry the Cable Guy. He is probably the largest deciding factor for most people who are considering this movie. If you love Larry the Cable Guy and his redneck schtick, then you’ll probably see this movie. If, however, you cannot stand this man, or his comedy, or the very mention of him in a positive light, then you might not like the fact that this movie focuses much more on his character than the first movie did.

Why you should be excited about it:

Pixar knows what they’re doing. I’ve never known them to put out a movie that I did not at least mildly enjoy. I don’t think they would produce this film if they didn’t feel like there was a good story to be told.

The animation is going to look amazing. You know this.

Michael Caine is in it!!!

Listen, the thing is, even if you're not excited about it, this movie probably is not made for you. If you're reading this blog, you're probably not in the core demographic that this movie is hoping to please. This is not one of Pixar's higher-concept films. This movie is made for kids. Imagine being a kid and seeing these films, where the cars talk and tell jokes and go fast. It's a completely new world. Kids love that, and that's why they'll love this film. If you have kids, this will probably be a winner for you.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.cars2trailer.net/

Movies to see this summer: June 17th, 'Green Lantern'

What it’s about:
In a twist of fate, cocky pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) becomes the first human selected for the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic faction that maintains order in the universe. Enter the Parallax, a malevolent alien entity, and it’s up to Jordan to stop it.

Why you might not excited about it: 

For the general audience, this may be too geeky. It shouldn’t be, though. I think it appeals to everyone. But those who have never read the comics/aren’t interested in the characters may be indifferent.

The biggest strike against this film so far is the first trailer, which the studio rushed out and thus displayed sub-par visual effects that turned many people off. As I said, it was rushed out to begin the marketing campaign and the effects were nowhere close to being finished. Also, that first trailer showed so much of the story on Earth, and that didn’t make people happy, either. I don’t blame anyone for their reaction to it. With a movie that’s going to rely as much on visual effects as Green Lantern, the effects should be pristine. Plus, the large-scale sequences were not even ready to show, so it made the movie seem like it would lack substance. In reality, it was a poor marketing decision, and the studio hopes to put it behind them.

Blake Lively. She was okay in The Town, but she has not proven herself to be a good actress, in my opinion….and in the opinion of many others. But maybe this will be the one for her. Still, every trailer that was shown for this movie either showed her sparingly (and what parts were shown were not pretty) or didn’t feature her at all, as if to wiggle around having to show her involvement. Don’t get the wrong idea. I have nothing against Blake Lively. She just might not be one of the strengths of this movie.

Why you should be excited about it: 

The 4-minute footage from WonderCon looked amazing to me.

Ryan Reynolds. He has never disappointed as a star. Even those who hated Blade: Trinity could agree that he was the highlight of it. In fact, that movie showcases every strength of Ryan Reynolds as an actor. His wit, his charm, and his immense physicality. Reynolds possesses the charisma for this role and I’m excited to see him display that.

The visuals effects are going to look great when they’re all done.

Martin Campbell is directing. For those who do not know, he’s responsible for successfully rebooting the James Bond franchise twice (first with GoldenEye, then again in 2006 with Casino Royale).

Check out the WonderCon footage, so far the best showcase of this film:

http://www.slashfilm.com/watch-minutes-green-lantern/

Movies to see this summer: June 10th, 'Super 8'

What it’s about:
A group of friends are making a movie on a super 8 camera in the summer of 1979 when suddenly they witness a horrible train wreck. Whatever is inside the train starts causing strange things to happen around town, and it becomes bigger than anyone imagined.

Why you might not be excited about it: 

The description I just gave may have sounded very cryptic. Cryptic doesn’t work for everyone.

Why you should be excited for it: 

Honestly, there aren’t a lot of reasons why you shouldn’t be excited about this one.

J.J. Abrams is the director. Steven Spielberg is the producer. Why on earth wouldn’t you go see this movie?

What I like about Spielberg (and Abrams, to the extent that it applies) is that he casts unknown actors when it counts. What I admire about these men as filmmakers is that they are not relying on star power to get people to see this movie. They know how to market their film. They know to market it on story. Any studio would have cast Tom Cruise as the sheriff (instead of Kyle Chandler) and marketed the movie based around his character. But you see, the story is about everyone and the focus of this movie seems to be centered around the event of these things coming to town and causing all these disappearances, and the fact that the truth is being hidden from our protagonists. That’s the hook, because you, as an audience member, want to know what’s going on. Abrams is no stranger to this model. He is knowledgeable enough, confident enough, and talented enough to know that the story should speak for itself, and he knows how to make you want to see this movie. And why wouldn’t you?  Abrams created LOST, and produced Cloverfield, two projects whose entire hook was secrecy and not spoiling the surprise in the trailers or TV spots.

Now, I will say that now knowing a lot about this movie may make you just say “meh.” Meaning, you’ll probably go see it, but you don’t have any expectations for it. That’s fine. That’s kind of how I feel. But you know what? That doesn’t mean I’m not excited for it. The fact is, I’m still going to go see it. I like the fact that I don’t know much about it. It leaves more for me to discover in the theater.

Check out the trailer

http://www.twitvid.com/T6FFB

Movies to see this summer: June 3rd, 'X-Men: First Class'

What it’s about:
A prequel to the X-Men franchise, it takes place in the 1960s, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Civil Rights Movement, Kennedy administration, and the beginnings of Charles Xavier and Magneto. The film explores the relationship between these two characters, who begin as best friends and end as adversaries.

Why you might not be excited about it:
A lot of people did not like the third movie. X-Men: The Last Stand is the second-lowest rated film in the X-Men franchise, surpassed in disfavor by X-Men Origins: Wolverine. These two films may have made some people want to give up on the series altogether,

Why you should be excited:
It seems that this movie will focus very much on the themes of diversity and persecution that were the entire point of the X-Men. The fact that this film is a prequel and set in the 1960s has given the filmmakers the opportunity to display these themes amongst their real-life parallels. The X-Men comics were a metaphor for racism, diversity, tolerance, and acceptance. The characters of Charles Xavier and Magneto themselves are considered to be representative of the leaders of the Civil Rights Movement. Xavier represents Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose approach to racial equality was one of peace and nonviolence. Xavier hopes for the peaceful integration of mutants into society. Magneto represents Malcolm X, who preached black supremacy and felt that white Americans should be punished for hate crimes against blacks. Similarly, Magneto not only wants mutants to stop being hunted, he wants them to rule over non-mutants. These conflicting beliefs put Xavier and Magneto at odds with one another. The interesting subtext of this story makes the films engaging and thought-provoking.


It should also be noted that Bryan Singer has returned to produce this film. Singer is an extremely talented director and producer and his skill with ensemble casts (so crucial for a movie like this, with multiple protagonists) is evident in his work with such films as The Usual Suspects and Valkyrie. As for the the previously mentioned X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Singer was not invovled with those. He directed the first two X-Men films, which were solid films at the very least. Singer himself said that he feels very at home with the X-Men universe and hopes to do more with the franchise in the future. This film is in good hands with Bryan Singer. His involvement alone excites me.

Also, it will be exciting to see what the new cast will bring to their characters. I'm particularly excited about the casting of James McAvoy (Professor Charles Xavier) and Michael Fassbender (Magneto).

Plus, the trailer looks really cool.

Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrbHykKUfTM

Movies to see this summer: May 26th, 'The Hangover Part II'

What it’s about:
Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) go to Thailand for Stu’s wedding and they have another wild night.


Why you might not be excited about it:
Because between my description and the trailer, this movie seems to be repeating its own formula beat for beat. How many hijinks could these three get into? And seriously, what are the chances that this exact scenario would happen to those same three guys again?


Why you should be excited:
Because the first movie was hilarious. It instantly made stars out of Cooper, Helms, and Galifianakis. Anyone who had ever been blackout drunk could relate to it, and those who hadn’t were able to experience what it’s like the day after heavy drinking, when you can’t remember where your car is or who stabbed you and why. The sequel has a lot to live up to, no doubt, but at the very least, I’d expect it to be worth your money.

Check out the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYL_T7f59o8

Movies to see this summer: May 20th, "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides'

What it’s about:
Jack Sparrow is- oh damn, sorry. Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) is on a mission to find the fabled Fountain of Youth. However, he’s not the only one who wants to find it. Captain Hector Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush), the fearsome Blackbeard (Ian McShane) and his daughter Angelica (Penelope Cruz) are also keen to claim it.


Why you might not be excited about it:
Because fans did not like the third one. I’m not saying everyone hated it. I’m saying that it wasn’t as well received as Dead Man’s Chest, and certainly not as well as Curse of the Black Pearl, which is the best of the franchise. I could go on all day about the strengths and weaknesses of the franchise, but I have a word limit on this thing.

Filmgoers may also note that On Stranger Tides is not directed by Gore Verbinski, who helmed the other Pirates movies, and who is largely responsible (second to Depp himself) for the franchise’s success. He’s a really great director. His absence may be throwing people off the scent of this continuing franchise, especially if they were put off by At World’s End.

Also, Disney had announced that not only were they making this film, but also a fifth and sixth film, centered on the character of Jack Sparrow. This is a benign fact, but it can also be perceived as a money grab by Disney, who could be seen as aiming merely to cash in on their Pirates money tree instead of producing good content. This is how some may have felt about At World’s End. Some who did not like the movie felt that the studio had been lazy with it, putting story and character in the backseat in favor of profitability. The movie was greenlit without a finished script. I absolutely love Disney, but I absolutely hate when movies are allowed to film without first nailing down their script. As I said, some may see this franchising as a cash grab, and they’re right, to some degree. Filmmaking is a business, and if a studio knows it can make money off of a franchise, it will. Just because that studio happens to be Disney does not at all mean that it’s purely for money.

Finally, certain people may be averse to this movie because the franchise no longer includes the characters of Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) or Elizabeth Swann (Kiera Knightley). Not to generalize the female audience, but part of their enjoyment of these films came from the romance between Will and Elizabeth, who are actually the main characters of the first three movies.

Why you should be excited:
Dissect everything you just read and find the positives. Chief among them is the fact that Will and Elizabeth are gone and the focus is officially on the only character anybody actually ever cared about: Jack Sparrow. Will and Elizabeth may have technically been the main characters, but they were fairly boring characters. Jack Sparrow is now an iconic character because of the talents of Johnny Depp and he is by far the life of the franchise. Will and Elizabeth’s stories were finished anyways. Plus, the actors' contracts were up and both Bloom and Knightley declined to be in the next three films. I say it’s for the better.

Also, Geoffrey Rush is still in the movies. He was such a great villain in Curse of the Black Pearl and is never ever boring to watch. It was always fun to watch him and Sparrow interact. Along with Rush, the rest of the cast is impressive. Ian McShane and Penelope Cruz are both extremely talented actors and it will be exciting to see the depth that they will bring to their characters, the same way Rush and Depp brought their own to life.

Lastly, On Stranger Tides will be a standalone movie. It won’t be the first part of two movies, so there will be no dissatisfaction of lack of resolution.

Check out the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KR_9A-cUEJc&feature=related

Movies to see this summer: May 6th, 'Thor'

What it’s about:
Norse god Thor (Chris Hemsworth) is banished from Asgard to live among the mortals of Earth and defends the planet against Loki (Tom Hiddleston).


Why you might not be excited about it:
Comic-book movies are hit-and-miss these days. You get some great ones (Spiderman 2, The Dark Knight, Iron Man), you get some poopy ones (Fantastic Four, Daredevil, HULK), and you get some that people are on the fence about (Sin City, Watchmen, The Incredible Hulk). Comic books are difficult to adapt because the filmmakers must satisfy the fans of the comics while also making the film accessible for mainstream audiences who know little or nothing of the existing characters and their continuity. Also, comic books can be tricky because the filmmakers must also decide how seriously to treat the material and whether or not it could hurt the film.

Comic book movies have been everywhere lately. The general attitude in Hollywood right now is that if a movie is based on a comic book, then it should be made, and most of those that get made are not treated with the respect that the fans and the source material deserve. Iron Man was a huge success, and along with other recent hits like Sam Raimi’s Spiderman series and Christopher Nolan’s Batman franchise, studios see them both as a profitable endeavor and crowd-pleasers.

So then Marvel announced that they would be making an Avengers movie that would not only feature the Avengers (Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk, Hawkeye, etc..) but also that each Avenger would get their own movie AND that they would maintain film-to-film continuity, meaning that whoever played Thor in Thor would also play Thor in The Avengers. This was a huge announcement that got everyone excited. But some of us were wondering how they would make a movie about Thor that could be taken seriously and that would blend well with characters like Tony Stark.


Why you should be excited:
Chris Hemsworth is perfectly cast as Thor. Kenneth Branagh is directing, a fact that gave many people hope that this would be a good movie in the hands of a competent director. And then the trailer came out, showing everyone just how cool this movie looks. Many people who were not at all excited about the film are now the ones telling others that it will be worth their money. I certainly think so.

Check out the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHBnrJowBZE

Movies to see this summer: April 29th, 'Fast Five'

What it’s about:
Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and friends come together to pull off a kick-ass heist in Rio de Janeiro.

Why you might not be excited about it:
It’s the fifth movie in a divisive franchise. Everyone loved the first one, but from then on, viewers have never gotten that same feeling from the second, third and fourth movies. The series has been a bit jumpy with its characters. Vin Diesel, Jordana Brewster, and Michele Rodriguez were absent for the second and third installments. Paul Walker himself wasn’t in Tokyo Drift, nor were Tyrese or Ludacris, who had been brought in for 2 Fast 2 Furious, who also were not in Fast and Furious (the 4th movie, if you’re already confused. It’s understandable). It felt like the studio panicked and brought the original cast back for the fourth movie as a last resort, and perhaps it worked. It made for an enjoyable movie. However, some may still be apprehensive about this next installment.
 

Why you should be excited:
The bottom line is, these movies are made to showcase insane stunts, largely involving cars. That’s the whole reason people go to see them. From the looks of the trailer, Fast Fivewill deliver exactly that. And, I want to see Vin Diesel fight The Rock.

Check out the trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDOBLS8m2yE

Shane Black may co-write 'Iron Man 3'

For those who did not know, Shane Black is directing Iron Man 3, which makes many people (this writer included) very happy. All the same, we were also bummed that he was not also writing the movie.

Why? Well, because Shane Black wrote Lethal Weapon, actively defining the action genre for many people (myself included). He wrote engaging, witty characters. Tony Stark, anyone? Stark is so snarky and witty, it's a wonder that Shane Black didn't go back in time and create the character himself. Just as Robert Downey Jr. was perfectly cast as Tony Stark, Shane Black is perfectly cast to direct the character. And he's also the best choice to replace Jon Favreau, as the Iron Man movies are big action setpieces as well. Black's appointment also gave hope to many people, showing them that the studios would trust someone like Black (whose only directorial effort was Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) with a big budget threequel like Iron Man 3.

 

It was recently reported that Black is indeed co-writing Iron Man 3 with Drew Pearce. It should have been that way from the start. Black was the perfect choice for Iron Man 3 because he wrote and directed Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, which also starred Robert Downey Jr. I, along with many others, loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang for it's witty comedy and well-drawn characters. Downey's and Black's familiarity and chemistry with each other should prove to make a really fantastic movie, hopefully more story-driven than Iron Man 2, and maybe since it will be coming out AFTER The Avengers, the studio won't repeat their stupid decision to intrusively crowbar Avengers tidbits that had absolutely NOTHING to do with the plot into the movie.

It just makes me happy to see the job so to the right person.

'Fired Up!' review

Look, this writer hates teen sex comedies as much as the next person. They’re formulaic, generic, and usually revolve ridiculously around sports. Each one seems to be trying to be the next American Pie, especially the American Pie series itself. They all deal either with high-schoolers losing their virginity as a rite of passage or veterans looking for more challenging notches to put on their belts.
So what makes 2009’s Fired Up! any different? The little moments. Now, to be clear, the little moments in movies do not necessarily make movies great overall. But ask any friend about certain DVDs they own. Maybe they have a copy of a movie that is generally seen as a bad movie. When you ask them why they own it, they’ll say either “it’s my guilty pleasure” or “the little moments.” It does not matter what everyone else likes. It matters what you like.
To quickly explain, Fired Up! is a close copy of Wedding Crashers. It follows two guys (Eric Christian Olsen and Nicholas D’Agnosto) who sleep with lots of girls and are looking to sleep with more. They deduce that their high school’s cheerleading camp will house 300 hot girls and no guys. Planning to use their expertise and the convenient guy/girl ratio, the two join the cheerleading squad so that they can go to camp. While there, one of them (D’Agnosto) falls for a girl (Sarah Roemer) that he doesn’t just want to sleep with; he wants to get to know her. This girl has a boyfriend (David Walton) who is a complete assbag so that the audience will root against him and for the protagonist who, even though he may be the better choice, is nevertheless trying to steal another dude’s girlfriend. All the while, it’s a matter of time before the girls figure out that our heroes are frauds. Hilarity ensues.

No, really. It does. This movie took a very generic plot and made it funny. The strength of this film is the interplay between the characters. Everyone is charming in this movie, even the antagonist and his cronies. It’s all in good fun. This is not a timeless comedy. It’s just something fun to watch with friends. Fans of John Michael Higgins will be pleased with his role in this film as the camp cheerleading coach. Higgins delivers as always and makes the most of his minimal screen time.

Please do not take this movie seriously. It sure doesn’t. You’d be doing yourself a disservice by trying to penalize this film for falling short of its potential. You’d be wrong. This film is exactly what it wanted to be. It was funny, light entertainment with funny actors possessing great comedic timing and engaging humor. Don’t overthink it.

Yet another post-converted 3-D movie

This writer has nothing to report about Alfonso Cuaron’s Gravity, but something to say about its process.
A message should go out to the movie-going public in Mobile: Do not see movies that have been post-converted to 3D. It is (most of the time) a lazy practice that sells short that which could otherwise be good 3D.
For those who don’t know, post-conversion is when a movie is shot in 2D, and then the filmmakers decide that they want it to show in 3D, so they go through a lengthy process in post-production involving the separation of layers and such, eventually producing a 3D film. If that satisfies you, then great. Ignore this article.
However, a good portion of moviegoers actually care about the quality of 3D that they’re paying for. The main beef to be had with post-conversion is that it is most of the time (not always) a cash grab. You see, if a film is going to be shown in 3D, there should be a strong creative motivation for it. It should enhance the film in marvelous ways. If this technology will make a film better, then it should NOT be post-converted. It should be SHOT in 3D, with 3D cameras. That’s why they exist. Many people out there are not fans of 3D in general (*cough cough*), but even those people would agree that any 3D film should be shot in 3D.

Now, it should be noted that studios are not all a bunch of money-grabbers. Not all. Shooting in 3D is wickedly expensive, so it can be understood why studios would want to skip that cost. However, even that argument doesn’t seem to hold up, because post-conversion also costs a lot of money AND a 3D movie makes more money because of ticket inflation. So even if the studios don’t pay to shoot in 3D, they still pay to post-convert it. Why not just shoot in 3D? I’m not an accountant for the studios. I cannot know exactly which way is cheaper.

Whatever the case, 3D is a special effect. George Lucas once said that special effects should be tools for storytelling and that a special effect with no story is worthless. Despite the fact that Lucas himself seems to have recently ignored his own mantra, he was right. There are far too many films in recent years that have used 3D as a gimmick just to sell tickets and make more money. And whatever, it’s a business. But if you’re going to make people pay 3 extra dollars, give them adequate 3D.

Peter Jackson says 'hello' from the set of 'The Hobbit'

Everyone loved The Lord of the Rings. It was a major achievement in film and visual effects. For those of you who wondered if Peter Jackson would make a Hobbit movie, the answer is yes. He's been working on it for some time now. Years, in fact. Those who have kept up with the film world know how difficult it was for him to get things moving on it and are excited that things are working out now.

Jackson sent out a 10-minute video from the set of the movie. In it, he shows the actors, a couple of the sets, and gives us plenty of Middle Earth to tide us over for a while.
Also, he's shooting the movie (in two parts) at 48 frames per second. Quickly, for those who don't know, film is shot at 24 frames per second, and projected at the same frame rate. When you shoot at 48 frames per second and then project at 48 frames per second, since there is twice the amount of frames in such a small amount of time, the image is much much smoother and better to look at. Jackson and James Cameron are trying to shift the industry in this direction, and it is a good thing. This will also make 3D more bearable and enjoyable for everyone. Anyway, that's another topic for another day.

Check out the video on Slashfilm at: http://www.slashfilm.com/votd-peter-jacksons-video-blog-set-the-hobbit/#more-102206

'Your Highness' Review

Have you ever watched a period film and gotten bored from the Old-English speak? Do you ever wish that the characters would incorporate modern-day vulgarities into their vocabulary? Well, you're in luck. Your Highness is for you!

It stars Danny McBride as Thadeous, the underacheiving younger brother to Fabious (James Franco), the dashing, triumphant warrior. Fabious returns from a quest with bride-to-be Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel) but the wedding is disrupted by a dark wizard named Leezar (Justin Theroux). Leezar kidnaps Belladonna, intending to rape her when the two moons (yes, two) touch, thereby creating a giant dragon with which he can control the kingdom. It's complicated. And irrelevant. Anyways, with the reluctant help of Thadeous, Fabious embarks on a quest to reclaim Belladonna and kill Leezar. Along the way, hilarity ensues.
To be clear, this movie's effectiveness completely depends on your sense of humor, like any comedy. This is another comedy from the Judd Apatow end of the spectrum, but without the great story and actual drama. As mentioned before, the main draw of this movie is the gimic: Medieval characters spouting contemporary swear words. That is the ONLY reason to see this movie. That being said, it delivers on that level. The jokes are funny, and the gimic is enough to pass 2 hours without getting too repetitive. Everything else is lazy. There is no story, no tension, and no character growth at all. The only people who should go see this are mostly males who enjoy Dungeons and Dragons and Eastbound and Down. Go see it with a big group of friends and have fun with it. However, this movie is not worth seeing twice or purchasing for home viewing. Like most comedies, the jokes will not be half as funny the second time around. You see, comedy depends mostly on the element of surprise. The comedies that can be watched over and over again work because they not only have great jokes, but those jokes are character-driven and make sense with the equally-engaging story. The jokes in Your Highness are driven by nothing, and once you've heard the jokes, they won't be fresh ever again.

This movie has been getting a lot of negative reviews. RottenTomatoes.com has given it a 25% score. This sends the wrong message because people who see that rating will think that there is nothing here to enjoy. There is, but just once.

Source Code review

Concerning Source Code, I did not know what to think when I saw the trailer. I saw what I considered to be a great idea, with a cast that I liked, helmed by a director I respect. Duncan Jones brought us Moon, which was sadly nominated for no Oscars. The low-budget science fiction story was a step in the right direction for movies and a worthy entry into the genre.

So when I heard about Source Code, I figured it would be one of those movies that was probably a good story until Hollywood got its hands on it. It had a much bigger budget and a more notable cast. I did not plan on watching it until my friends announced their plans to do so, and I tagged along. I was blown away.

Source Code is more than you see in the trailer. That’s saying something, too, because these days, movie marketers don’t know how to rope an audience in without giving away major plot details. This can be death for a science fiction film, as most of them rely on the element of surprise. Yet Jones and the studio managed to keep the juicier stuff under wraps and that made all the difference.

The movie follows Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) who wakes up on a train, not knowing where he is. Sitting across from him is Christina (Michelle Monaghan), who addresses him as Sean Fentress, as his drivers license and reflection confirm. While Stevens tries to figure out what is going on, the train explodes. He wakes up in a sort of cockpit and is addressed as Captain Stevens by a woman on a computer screen, Goodwin (Vera Farmiga). She tells him that he was just inside the titular source code and explains, through interesting scientific exposition, that this allows him to occupy the memory of the subject’s last 8 minutes of life. The subject here is Sean Fentress, a teacher who was aboard the train, which was blown up by a bomb that morning. Stevens’ mission is to find the train bomber in order to save more lives, able to try and retry the same 8 minutes to complete his task, all while trying to find out where he is.

This is a brilliant movie and, like Moon, is a step in the right direction. I was so happy that this was not another mindless, nonsensical thriller like many movies in the past couple of years. Gyllenhaal is a solid leading man here, and I sympathized with his situation. I felt as confused as he was, and I learned what was going on along with him. There’s much more to this movie than I can say right now, but it is worth paying the full ticket price for it. Movies like this deserve to be supported for delivering thought-provoking, coherent entertainment. Source Code is for everybody, both the casual, “let’s just find something to do tonight” moviegoer and the serious movie geek (like myself) who will pick it apart. It is entertainment on both an aesthetic and intellectual level. This is what you should be seeing this week in the theaters.

-Conner Dempsey