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