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