MOVIES, SHOWS AND SOUNDS AT GMAN'S LOUNGE

Super Bowl TV Spots

2011-02-06T21:17:00.007-06:00

Missed the best part of the Super Bowl? I'm here for you. Except when it comes to making the videos fit in my blog space. That's on you. I'm sure a little right clicking and finagling will do worlds for you:

Cowboys & Aliens
My second favorite spot of the Super Bowl event. It's such an insane idea... it just might work. Harrison Ford hasn't looked this cool in decades. Teaming him with Daniel Craig, in a western that replaces Indians with aliens, sounds like the most fun we'll have this summer.

Thor
We need another superhero flick like I need another bill to pay. So I hope Thor is better than the spot is-- Which simply screams high levels of generic. Over time this film has become less and less interesting to me. Still, I'm curious what Kenneth Branagh brings to the genre. (Assuming Marvel gave him any creative control.)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon
I know. "Why?" Right? But Michael Bay cuts such convincing trailers you have to marvel at how he's able to make such material look like a world changing event. I won't get my hopes up, but this movie looks more like a straight forward invasion flick than a psuedo-war picture. Points for looking different and maintaining Optimus Prime's badassary.

Transformers 'Dark of The Moon' Super Bowl Trailer (720p) from Michael Bay Dot Com on Vimeo.

Captain America: The First Avenger
Honestly? It was one of my favorite spots of the evening. I didn't think a Captain America movie would work. I'm no fan of the character and I don't think he's aged well enough to be relevant. But this holds my interest over Thor. I like the period setting. It should be a fun flick.

Battle: Los Angeles
I don't really understand the hype surrounding this dog. Jonathan Liebesman's resume isn't very impressive and yet some critics/journalists are throwing his name next to Neill Blomkamp, Gareth Edwards and Zack Snyder. Why? Maybe Battle: LA isn't as generic of an action flick as it looks in this spot. I'd like to think Aaron Eckhart only chooses really interesting scripts.

Super 8
My favorite spot of the night. Something original and fresh. Something that doesn't come from a comic book, isn't a sequel, isn't a preexisting material and doesn't come from a cereal box. And yet... it's so familiar. J.J. Abrams' new flick feels so much like a Spielberg movie from the 1980s it's enough to claim as my most anticipated film of the summer. Watch:

There were a few more, but these are all I really care to pass along. If there are any broken links, let me know.

MOVIE REVIEW - The Social Network

2011-01-31T23:34:00.008-06:00

Since I saw this film in September I’ve been toting it as, “one of the most important films of our generation.” It seems I’m really good at spitting fire, but hiding the fuel tank. “So why, G? Why is The Social Network so important? And why should we care?” Answer:

Does everyone remember Citzen Kane? I’m fully aware I’m not the first to liken The Social Network with what the AFI claims to be the greatest film of all time. However, I do want to sit on this comparison for a moment. Both movies are inspired by real events that follow young corporate juggernauts out to find love on their own terms. (Thank you Mr. Leland.) Whether either of these films was accurate doesn’t matter. What matters are the main characters depicted in Citizan Kane and The Social Network used what was popular and innovative, for the time, to gain power. The Social Network reminds us the dangers of Charles Foster Kane's errors still live, but in a much different way.

The difference between Kane and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg is the latter created a new communication network to influence big business. Currently, Facebook is the epicenter of web communication. It has carelessly transformed the word “friend” in to a meaningless web of contacts you may or may not communicate with. Knowing this makes The Social Network all the more tragic. Zuckerberg’s hijacking of various networking ideas causes an escalating “friends list.” But the people who inspired his project sure as hell aren’t on it. The poster reads, “You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.” The poetry behind this tagline is really incredible. In the film his enemies are right in front of him; face to face. The people on his "friends" list? I can't be sure I saw any onscreen.

Zuckerberg's business triumphs mixed with his social failings make the movie. It hits hard when he’s left alone with his own creation, watching his profile in hopes to earn a “real” friend. Though it also shows how vicious one entrepreneur must be to reach success. Apparently you don’t make $500 million without making a few enemies either. So while parading Zuckerberg as a tragic “asshole,” the movie also establishes the grit and initiative needed to create a corporate flagship like Facebook. Aaron Sorkin’s script plots through the ideas of Facebook’s evolution without feeling like it's needless exposition. The characters remain as entertaining as ever while the ideas of success are presented to the audience.

I must say I was one of the first to turn my nose up at the idea of this movie. But placing it in the hands of Sorkin and David Fincher brought real heart to the film. They know Facebook is a monster that has taken up our generation’s time with needless worries of what Gracie thinks about Ellen’s picture. Or updating statuses. Or seeing if Sondra is still dating Bob. The list goes on, but The Social Network comes down to why we do this. It turns out the creator wanted Facebook for the same reason we do: Instant gratification. Now we can all feel important with a simple click.

Accurate or not, it makes for great storytelling. I wonder if Mr. Zuckerberg really does get that instant relief when logging in to Facebook. He might also feel empty knowing his monster is just an existential time-waster. Is Zuckerberg sitting in front of his laptop waiting to utter, "Rosebud?" Nah, we've seen that story. He’s probably just counting his checks.

**** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Inception

2011-01-23T00:50:00.007-06:00

By now the world has been exposed to the word, “inception.” I won’t place bets on everyone, but chances are most will remember it as a movie and not the word they memorized for their vocabulary test. Oh, but those who were exposed to the “big word” during their 5th grade spring semester probably have a better chance at understanding it than others. But that’s one reason why Inception is praiseworthy. It doesn’t treat its audience like idiots. It respects us enough to trust we will follow every line of dialogue and understand the mammoth that is Christopher Nolan’s mind at work. We should beat down the door for more movies like these.

I won’t bother with a synopsis. If you haven’t seen the movie by now, get the hell out and start feeding it to your eyes. Meanwhile, I’ll struggle to provide new insight to a movie that’s been reviewed in to the ground. Praising the script, effects and acting only goes so far. But loving it-- ah, well, it seems appropriate for a movie that respects its audience so well. Christopher Nolan loves his job. He loves it so well that it pours on to the hearts and minds of filmgoers much in the same way that Spielberg, Lucas and Scorsese had. The best example of this, in actuality, is pointing out the film’s “shortcomings.” I use the word shortcomings, because Inception’s lesser moments have been dubbed flaws.

I won’t say the film is flawless, but I won’t call a lack of “emotional connection” or “underused” supporting cast members a flaw by definition. I fully admit Inception had an amazing cast of decidedly underdeveloped characters. And I didn’t feel as stricken by Dom Cobb’s predicament as I did Harvey Dent or Bruce Wayne. But when did this movie call on an overwhelming amount of emotion or supporting character development to be key to its success? At the core, the movie is a heist flick with stakes higher than money or power. It’s about a man who wants to see his children. Like all heist movies the exposition is high, but clever. The supporting characters become outlets for the audience. They aren’t on screen to grow; they’re here to humanize a bizarre plan so we believe people can actually enter the mind of a person. Mission accomplished. The rest is on Leonardo DiCaprio and Nolan.

Never once does DiCaprio waver as a man in desperation, yet fully embracing his talent in the world of corporate espionage. The character tiptoes through Nolan’s flowchart of ideas that, miraculously, ends with no holes. Roger Ebert cracked that writing Inception must’ve been like, “playing blindfold chess while walking a tight-wire.” Such an exercise actually seems easier in hindsight. In the ten years it took Nolan to finish this script, I wonder if there was ever a doubt such an elaborate idea would work. And even when the bible of dream navigating was finished, would it have enough of a human element for audiences to relate to? Whether it did on paper or not, Nolan was wise to choose DiCaprio for the job.

Whelp, lets tread on the ending. Some believe they saw the top waver! “It was about to fall!” Others think he was still trapped in the dream. Me? I have my theory, but broadcasting it doesn't interest me. I believe Nolan meant more than an ambiguous ending. Today filmmakers, producers and hacks are forcing audiences to feel a part of a movie with this 3D fad-o-crap. Nolan probably wants to invite audiences in as well, but he goes about it more subtly. Leaving us with the dreaded spinning top does more than what 3D accomplishes. It puts us in the same shoes as Dom Cobb. Throughout the film our hero obsesses over reality and figments of the mind. He must know the truth! And so must we. Bummer.

The genius of Inception doesn’t stem from it being a perfect movie. A great movie is rarely perfect and believing otherwise invites words like “masterpiece” to be overused. Its brilliance lies in its careful crafting and loving trust that the movie will work and we will understand it. It's not simply that I will praise a movie with, ahem, “shortcomings.” Rather, I enjoy awarding (and loving) oceans of talent pushed against all odds. Inception should’ve failed. Mr. Nolan continues to be venerated.

**** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Copout

2011-01-10T15:15:00.004-06:00

I shan’t be spending too much time on this review. Not because of how terrible it is, but because I love Kevin Smith. I love his movies. I love his scripts. And I adore Bruce Willis. But Copout isn’t simply a weak movie; it’s a waste of a movie. Period.

If you’ve seen any buddy-cop flick you know what you’re in for here. The fact that this sub-genre is still alive after Edgar Wright demolished it in Hott Fuzz is astounding. What’s worse is that Kevin Smith couldn’t even come up with any new gags to make it stand out. It is about as dumb as you can imagine it is.

Bruce Willis is an actor always worth paying to watch. He’s just an entertaining individual and if there’s anything nice to say about Copout, it is the simple fact that Willis graces it with his presence. If I were to pick the worst aspect out of the film, it would be Willis’s opposite, Tracy Morgan. Watching Morgan attempt lines is about as enjoyable as having a diseased chimpanzee shit in your mouth.

And no tragedy of cinema would be complete without an appearance from Sean William Scott. Although Smith was nice enough to grant me the pleasure of watching him dragged behind a car. It’s these small moments the film sparks, but once the flash is gone we get the deep void that is Copout.

The best example is the interrogation at the film’s start. Morgan’s attempt to scare a man by using classic movie lines gives Willis plenty of commentary to satisfy Kevin Smith nerdom. It was a reflexive moment that could have carried the entire film, but this is not your typical Kevin Smith outing. It’s a studio attempt at another movie with two dysfunctional cops getting in trouble. It doesn’t have to sound as lackluster as it is, but since the concept has been explored so many times I suppose the writers figured, “Why bother?”

So what does Copout have? Well Morgan is having marital problems, so we get to see the fascinating subplot of a cop spying on his wife. Oh, don’t worry! I won’t spoil whether or not she really is cheating on him! There’s a damsel in distress somewhere in there. Gee, and what buddy-cop movie would be complete without the main characters’ suspended from active duty? It raises the stakes, man! They have to soldier on despite having their shields revoked! Think of the suspense.

Apparently Smith took a huge pay cut to make this movie and did it as a career move for future projects. I can certainly understand that. To move up in the world you have to make some unflattering plays. It doesn’t excuse the ugliness. A platypus is still a platypus and a bad movie is still a bad movie. I could dance around everything that’s wrong with the film all day, but that’s too depressing. The movie is called Copout, do you need any more of a warning?

* out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Tron Legacy

2011-01-08T03:10:00.010-06:00

“The Grid.” Says the brilliant Jeff Bridges, “A digital frontier.” It’s almost like the beginning of a Star Trek episode. It forewarns something mysterious and unknown coming our way. In a way this monologue is still an advertisement for the movie. After two years of waiting and a rumored $120 million spent on advertising alone, Tron Legacy’s hype ended under the dim lights of the multiplex. Is it bad I’m starting this review with the film’s absurd hype?

For those who haven’t seen the original Tron, you need not bother. One of the sequels great strengths is that you need virtually no understanding of the first. Right out of the blocks we’re introduced to younger versions of the main characters, Kevin Flynn (Bridges) and his son Sam. After Flynn’s unexplained disappearance it takes twenty years for Sam to find his father in “The Grid.”

I find it odd that there’s no mention of Sam’s mother, but maybe that’s asking too much. Should we care? Director Joseph Kosinski doesn’t bother too much with those petty details. Oh, but why should he? He has a world built on lights, glass and sexy motorcycles to worry about. If anything, Tron Legacy is a magnificent technical achievement. The costumes, sets and special effects are so beautifully realized it’s like watching a ballet of lights. Dare I risk heresy and say it was more enchanting than Avatar.

But above the aesthetics are flaws that have plagued far too many blockbusters in the last decade. The film’s pace screeches to a painful halt when Kevin Flynn explains a novel’s worth of back story. This voice-over exposition is so long-winded that I can’t help but wonder if it might have made a more interesting movie.

Even Clu, Flynn’s alter ego, gets a flashback worth cutting from the film. Although the scene’s attempt to humanize the antagonist failed, I must admit, watching the young Jeff Bridges is mesmerizing. I can’t say Bridges' face, digitally enhanced to look young, is a slam-dunk; but despite the flaws I’m more impressed with how close it looked. It wasn’t as impressive as Schwarzenegger’s face in Terminator Salvation, but to keep up the look for a whole movie must have been taxing. I'm interested to see how far this technology goes in the future.

In a sense the effects behind Clu’s face represents Tron Legacy well. After all, much of the movie’s pseudo-philosophic banter is about the merging of technology with man. That’s certainly what’s happening when a very human Sam gets integrated to a “memory-disc.” And you could also say the young, CGI Bridges represents the quality of the film itself: Close, but not quite.

The ultimate problem with Tron Legacy is its inability to build any real excitement. Sure, the universe looks enticing, but, like the original, the ideas are more promising than the presentation. There’s no awe to this “digital frontier” and by the time the movie climaxes you wonder if you missed a segment of build up. Still, it’s those ideas that kept me watching. While I’m probably rating this film to leniently, I can’t shake how cool Tron Legacy seems. It’d be nice to see how cool it could be one day.

**½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Harry Potter and the Deathly-Hallows Part I

2011-01-04T14:33:00.006-06:00

Praising the Harry Potter film franchise has become something of a given. Even at its lowest there’s charm to it and at it’s highest they’re some of the best films in the genre. Rebounding from that low point, the sixth movie, David Yates presents us with the most heart pounding chapter in the franchise.

I was one of those who cursed Warner Brothers for the decision to cut the seventh book in half. Obviously they wanted to milk more out of the cow, right? I still stand by that sentiment, but if you’re going to split a storyline in half, you might as well make it count. The Deathly-Hallows may be half a story, but it is most definitely a complete film. This is the Empire Strikes Back of The Harry Potter movies. The chips are down, the heroes are battered and the baddies have the upper hand.

Accompanying the journey with our heroes is the dreaded feeling of abandonment. Harry, Ron and Hermione have no one to turn to, nowhere to hide and running only does so much. The series has finally rammed home just how evil Voldemort is. Following a tense opening sequence that ends with a wonderfully terrified Jason Issacs and a dead Hogwarts teacher, (a.k.a. snake food) Voldemort’s power over the wizarding world becomes air tight. The Ministry has converted to a fascist regime. It’s not just Harry that’s in danger, the end of humans, or “muggles,” is nigh. This is how the Potter universe should feel. We should be weary of every corner the characters turn.

Meanwhile, under the very best performances of Daniel Radcliff, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson to date, the heroic trio come to blows over the seemingly futile quest to end Voldemort and… Hermione? Of course Harry has it bad for Ginny, and the film makes no secret about it—Bypassing the cutesy, shoe-tying crap from movie six for Harry zipping up her dress and kissing her like he means it. But with Hermione going all out for her friend, Ron is succumbed to jealousy. Does he mend his relationship with the two later? How triumphant would it be if he redeemed the situation by saving the day. Right?

And yet, it’s the scenes between Harry and Hermione that grab me the most. (Again.) Completely platonic, Harry has nothing to give the young woman in return for all she’s sacrificed. So with the radio pumped up he picks her up and dances with her just to get a smile on her face. These kids may have grown in to action heroes, but they’re still very human.

While the characters, acting and gorgeous cinematography are at a series high, I can’t believe some major events happen off screen. Character deaths and massive shifts in the wizarding world are revealed through word of mouth. While this may have been fine for the book, it leaves me a little baffled. We see Harry's flashes of Voldemort interrogating people; why not see how he took down the Ministry of Magic?

Though it isn’t the epic battle between those in charge and Voldemort that make The Deathly-Hallows. It’s the emotional journey of three characters who have grown up to fight a war they’ve been dragged in to. In some ways this story is reminiscent of what many in today’s world feel like. With a cliffhanger ending that does anything but ease that feeling, the Harry Potter series is set up for one hell of a triumphant finale. I pray the quality of this film carries over.

***½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - The Last Airbender

2011-01-03T12:42:00.003-06:00

I’m not entirely certain what is more confusing, this movie or M. Night Shyamalan’s career. The man threw down three of the most entertaining thrillers of my time and now he’s the Brett Favre of cinema. If there’s a trailer for his film, it will read “From the director of The Sixth Sense and Signs.” Nothing he’s done in the last seven years is worth a mention and his resume is now filled with as many blunders as Jimmy Fallon.

And yet my sympathy for the man still runs based on those three early triumphs. It may be that’s why I can’t condemn The Last Airbender as the worst movie of the year. Or maybe I really do believe it’s more worthwhile than say, Copout. Regardless, there’s no refuting The Last Airbender’s gaping void of decent filmmaking.

The Last Airbender has the story of those classic epics. A dark empire is running over the land and a young, reluctant hero must go on a quest to gain the powers necessary for peace. The difference between this film, Star Wars and Lord of the Rings is that the latter two treated their characters like Christ and His Apostles. Instead, the special effects get that respect in The Last Airbender.

Noah Ringer, the lead character Aang, isn’t terrible considering he’s had no prior acting experience. Yet I’m astounded, with all the talent in the world, Shyamalan decided being a black belt in taekwondo is more important than delivering lines. Was there a stunt man strike I wasn’t aware of this year?

Despite having more experience the rest of the cast isn’t any better. It makes you wonder what director Chris Columbus and the casting director of Harry Potter could’ve done. After Last Airbender, I dare anyone who criticized the early performances of Daniel Radcliff and Rupert Grint to tell me it couldn’t have been worse.

And as if having a poor script for poor actors isn’t bad enough, I’ve come to question Shyamalan’s shot choices as well. It was becoming evident in The Happening that his eye for great cinematography was waning. But The Last Airbender has shots that would only make a SyFy channel movie director proud. The director is supposed to make his actors look good. It’s an unwritten rule based on trust and collaboration. M. Night didn’t get the memo. He drenches the adults in even more ridiculous garb than the children and reveals the hokiness of the sets with very wide and puzzling cinematography. The 360 degree stuff worked in The Matrix. It even worked in Godzilla: Final Wars. It doesn’t even begin to work here.

And yet, with all the poor choices made with this movie I seem to have a soft spot for it. Perhaps the word-of-mouth that this was the worst movie of 2010 prepared me for something much worse. The Last Airbender is far from a good film, but it can be fun. Like I said, the story is a classic epic—Pure myth that we can all enjoy and look up too. Maybe that’s not a reason to have sympathy for a film and its director, but I’ll take it over The Happening.

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

2010-08-14T02:53:00.006-05:00

If cinematic originality is suffering, like so many internet trolling experts say, then my reply would be that it’s not always how original the story is, but how you tell it. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is an example of that reply biting me in the ass. The age-old story of a warrior battling for his true love is retold as a video game/comic book hybrid. I was originally interested in this idea and the prospect of another comedy by Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). I was even willing to set aside my hatred for Michael Cera and Beck Hanson to enjoy this film. But try as I might I just couldn’t embrace Scott Pilgrim.

When Scott Pilgrim cheats on his current girlfriend for the mysterious Ramona, karma catches up with him in the form of her seven evil exes. From there he goes through each ex, fighting for Ramona while trying to maintain a relationship with his band and roommate.

As if it were hard to choose, the best part about Scott Pilgrim is the nerd driven battles. Piled with video game nods ranging from Guitar Hero to Street Fighter, these fight scenes aren’t only creative acid trips, but hard hitting action sequences too. When Pilgrim smashed his fist in to the first “evil ex” I was really impressed with the way the visuals made me feel the impact. It makes me wonder if the wire-fu from the Matrix Trilogy is going to stand the test of time. Oh, yeah, and they’re pretty damn funny too. The fight with a vegan Brandon Routh peeks when Thomas Jane and Cliff Collins Jr. make a cameo as the “Vegan Academy” security. Brillant.

But beyond the ball breaking action scenes lies Michael Cera who was terribly miscast as Scott Pilgrim, a character far too confident to carry Cera’s trademark inelegance. (Or as I like to call, dumbassery.) Not that the writing is particularly excellent anyway. It tries to be quick and witty, but it’s handicapped by painful moments of awkward humor that made me shrivel up in my chair and wish I was watching any other movie. Why is it that Cera is a magnet for these types of moments? Is it in his contract to implement the clumsiest, eyeball puncturing moments in every movie he pollutes?

Oh, but Cera isn’t the only one to blame. There are plenty of poor actors in this movie and if it weren’t for the quick editing none of the lines would be saved. But should they be saved? It’s never a good thing when I’m halfway through a film and want to take an axe to the run time. What purpose did Pilgrim’s first meeting with the lesbian ex serve? It actually ruins the fact Ramona dated a girl. (Spoiler) Then there’s the long exposition between her and Scott. Why? This is a movie with a guy fighting a league of evil exes not My Fair Lady. Oh, right! I nearly forgot. What would we do without those important shots of Cera embarrassing himself? How would the world turn?

If you feel the need to see Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I’ll grant you can do a lot worse this summer. But it’s not much of an improvement either. It’s an overly long venture in high-octane special effects mixed with misfired humor and the occasional L.O.L. I can understand the need to do something different; to do something fun and to try something new. I can even appreciate the effort. But when the result is as alienating as this film what did it accomplish? Mr. Wright, you’re too good for this. P.S. Dear Beck, stop. Just stop it.

** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Toy Story 3

2010-08-11T03:30:00.008-05:00

Ah, Pixar. Once again I write a review about a film that was loved before it was released. Such is the case with most Pixar films. I suppose I was one of the few not totally enthralled with Ratatouille. And I don’t think the internet has enough bandwidth to relay my scathing hatred for Cars. So what of the final episode in the Toy Story trilogy? Should I praise it because it’s another Pixar home run? Should I hail it because it’s the best ending to a trilogy I’ve ever seen? Or should I just give it a thumbs up for being a solid movie? I contemplate this with such cynicism only because of my misplaced belligerence toward Pixar’s perfectionism. I don’t think Toy Story 3 is Pixar’s best film, or even the best Toy Story; but if there’s a textbook example of it’s astonishing (see: sickening) mastery over cinema—Well, here it is.

Toy Story’s finale sends Buzz and Woody on a quest to find a new home as Andy gears up for college. Though parting ways is hard on many different levels. The toys find a replacement daycare “paradise” that turns out to be hell on Earth. Meanwhile, Woody partakes in his favorite pastime (getting lost) and plans to rescue the others.

I read one film theory that claimed this movie was actually a retelling of the Holocaust. Whether that’s true is up for debate, but it’s certainly an interesting look at the story and gives it a little more dramatic weight. But if you wish to pay attention to the film’s political construct or not, rest assured Toy Story 3 has a heavy focus on the emotional aspect of its break-neck adventure. Almost immediately the film’s heartstring-plucker gets to work when we see a grown Andy and his dwindled collection of toys eager to be played with. While the Andy's coming-of-age subplot is certainly an important aspect of the story, most of the film is about moving on-- Times of change where one must let go and embrace the future. So which is more gut wrenching? Coming-of-age? Or moving forward? I suppose it doesn’t really matter since you’ll have to contend with both ideas at the movie's tear-jerking conclusion.

Not that it's perfect. I felt like the villain was too close to the previous film’s antagonist, what with his nice-guy/troubled past persona that turns out to be a façade. Then there’s the fact that the toys are fretting over Andy getting rid of them. Toy Story 2 established that they knew this day would come and they act as if they’ve forgotten about that. Perhaps my cynicism is kicking in again. Maybe the point I’m missing is that accepting fate doesn’t make the process any easier. Still, while the situational focus on the toys’ relationship with Andy is intriguing, I miss the franchise-defining camaraderie between Woody and Buzz. (Whom I felt was nearly wasted.)

Yet if the Toy Story series has shown me anything, it’s that they know how to end a movie in the most poignant way possible. After Pixar’s most armrest clenching showdown of their twenty-five year existence comes another high in emotional endings. I use the word “high” only realizing that if Toy Story 3 were a drug everyone would be on it and under Pixar’s control. Maybe we already are considering the immediate love for this film. Frankly, I can’t say it doesn’t deserve it. After all, how many beloved series end this well? Any takers?

***½ out of ****

When Bands Change - The Rebirth of Linkin Park, The Stinginess of Fans

2010-08-03T12:24:00.011-05:00

I've been a fan of Linkin Park for a long time and for most of that time I've defended them from real music lovers around-- Whether they're indie snobs that get hard from listening to some silly nightmare of insomniac curing shit like The White Stipes or Beck, or real "hard" music loving fans that still claim the likes of Metallica are the greatest musicians in the world despite the fact they went to war with their fans and refusing to release a lick of decent material in twenty-five years. Or they just like thrash metal and they're long gone...

Very few times, however, have I had to defend them from their own fans. This isn't even designated at a grand majority, but rather a bunch of ear-candy loving pussies who refuse to grow past the age of nine. Who gave them computer access? Can retarded people use a computer this well?

To clarify what's happening, Linkin Park's new single for their September 14th-bound A Thousand Suns was released yesterday. Titled "The Catalyst" I was initially unsure of the song myself based on very few clips. But once I heard all 5 minutes and 43 seconds of this monster I was astounded. Linkin Park had finally moved away from the typical mainstream sound and structure they had proved to easily reproduce with Minutes to Midnight (2007). Meanwhile the sounds of Hybrid Theory (2000) and Meteora (2003) were nowhere in sight.

Ah, but those naive fans thinking that Linkin Park would return to their nu-metal, rap-rocking roots were of course left more disappointed than ever. Trolling and spamming the Linkin Park website like clockwork with their inability to spell and clear irreverence for punctuation. Here's some of my favorites gathered from linkinpark.com and their facebook. Guaranteed to make you laugh:

"what happened 2 old LP paper cut all the good stuff in the end everything u guys messed up =( OLD LP FTWWWW since u guys switched music theres hardly anymore good rock"

"WTF?? Linkin park have you sold out to the Techno "FAN BOYS" or what?
I love you old stuff and that's why i was a fan of yours but if you don't pump out some good sounds where going to leave you."

"Sadly i will say that 1-2 songs on MTM was OK..... but still not the LP we love and know. And what's with all this GOD crap?? are you guys some christian rock/techno band now?"

"Omg so far from the meteora's album.. You're no more that a pop gay band :(.."

"not as good,as l.p used to be,please change your style again and come back to you earlier music ok.."

"Im not even lieing these guys song suck ass now..greenday much better"

"wats wrong wid all u dickheads who liked the song????? i mean are u guys fuckin kiddin me!! oh ok!! lemme guess everyone who liked it must defintaley be backstreet boys fans!! now i get it!! its assholes like urll who encourage LP do do this shit!! wanna listen somethin new go and listen to that bitch lady gaga u fuckin dorks!! bloddy nerds and geeks!!! dumbassess!! its not about HT and meteora, LP are a numetal alternative hard roc band, they already belonged to a category which cudnt be defined then y this!! its coz of ppl like urll who like this sorta crap!! LP this is for "u guys are loosin phase" better do somethin about it and look at the response u get!! and chester please stick to the human nature defined by u.. if its workin well stick to it and stay wid it!! just as a reminder to all HT WAS THE BEST SELLIN ALBUM OF 2001 AND METEORA IS THE ONLY MODERN ROCK ALBUM THAT HAS 5 OR MORE SINLGES WHO HIT THE NUMBER 1 SPOT IN THE CHARTS!!! so the message is straight, stick to the basics wen it works out well for u!!! and anyone who replies to this comment is eitehr frustrated or is so shamelessly a backstreet boys fan and is so desparately dependent on pop and techo music!!"

"its amazing that 95% of people that like this shitty song here are girls... But may i ask if its because the song is actually decent or you like mikes voice casue "he is cuuute"? Crap song, not LP, this is pop."

"Tell us something Mike... All "A Thousand Suns" sounds like "The Catalyst ???? Because, the Catalyst is your WORST SONG !!!!"

"The Catalyst SUCKS !!!! What the fuck is wrong with you Linkin Park?, my remix of "The Catalyst" is BETTER !!!"

"we want the old linkin park back!!!!!!"

"The Catalyst perfect FAIL!!!! Give us the old and hardcore LP!!!!!!!"

"I AM DISAPPOINTED :( wtf/ :(" (With a Meteora icon.)

"well i can wait for the next new album,and i pray to GOD,and i hope that album it's similar to HT or METEORA or LP is just fucking dead..to me they are dead until that cd will came out ...4 years for nothing"

All right, maybe I gave you too much of an example of what asininity looks like. The stupidity is so bad I have to keep it from leaking off my computer screen and attacking me like a virus. But there's just so many stupid people out there-- It was hard to choose. My favorite is the last one. The one I ended this example of idiocy and juvenile behavior on. Even with the band telling the world they want to change their sound over and over, even when we're two albums away from the nu-metal sound and even though nu-metal died six years ago and has remained dead with only a few terrible bands, like Korn and Limp Bizkit, holding on to its decomposing sound, there are fans still crossing their fingers Linkin Park will return to that old mess. I'll at least give them points for holding on to such hope for so long.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of Hybrid Theory and Meteora as well, but that era is dated, dead and, quite frankly, has nothing new to offer. I remember when Meteora was scolded like Minutes to Midnight when it first came out. Can all these fans who only like Linkin Park's old sound believe that Meteora was hated with a passion on the linkinpark.com boards when it first arrived? Guess what the number one complaint was? Ding, ding! It sounded too similar to Hybrid Theory. (Doesn't help that, looking, back on it, Meteora is Linkin Park's weakest album lyrically. How easy is it to rhyme heal with feel and real? I hope it didn't take them all night to come up with that.)

Now I'm aware the majority I'm fighting here are a bunch of snot-nosed, fat, spoiled, ITouch toting middle schoolers who "feel so numb" because Amy Missperfect, sitting two rows down in english class, doesn't like them back. Boo-Hoo. But I've seen for myself that the fan base has intelligence. LPAssociation.com is home to the older, wiser and more mature conversationalists. Most of them like the new stuff Linkin Park dishes out and the few people that don't are at least constructive about it. LPLive.net is similar, even if some of the more immature fans tend to bleed in to that haven. I'm not talking about, or too them, but I will give them a nice, big thank you for being grown-ups. (And using a passable percentage of decent grammar.)

But to the younger, stubborn and immature: The "old" Linkin Park is not coming back. Quite frankly, I'm happy about that. They've grown up and decided to do new things and that's what being a musician is all about. Linkin Park values music enough to push themselves and try new things. They don't want to stay in the old because it was "successful" or because "fans loved it." If they do that then they are selling out. Then they're in it for the money, not because they love music. They end up looking as bad as Limp Bizket. But a musician's art is music and to tell an artist to only paint one thing for his whole career is cruel and damning.

And so be it. Yesterday I heard Linkin Park take a risk, step out of the mainstream and leap even further away from the nu-metal comfort zone to create something with true layering and musicianship. Mike quipped in a UStream that the song is hardly pop just because it uses synthesizer. He's right. There's a lot of great electronic music and industrial sounds out there. (Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails) They're not "pop," so to speak, and neither is this. This is a well constructed, odd, but rewarding experience in an electronic rock sub-genre and quite frankly there's not a whole lot out there that sounds like it. (That's a good thing kiddies. Try to see the light.) Not to mention the astounding lyrics. They're few, but they're some of the best the band has put out. Beats the lyrical angst off of Meteora's "Somewhere I Belong". So to some degree I'm happy you youngster brats don't like the new Linkin Park. It's nice to enjoy a song from this band that jr. high students, or those with the same maturity level, can't understand the beauty of.

Even still, it's sad there are fans that want to break the band down in to a mediocre thought-process and keep them in a box to replicate a single sound over and over. I can't think of a more selfish, greedy reason to dislike new material. If you're constructive about it fine, but I've seen very little evidence to such a contrary.

Well done Linkin Park. Keep pushing forward. There are enough bands that drive backwards. They normally end up wrecking.

MOVIE REVIEW - Predators

2010-07-12T03:34:00.005-05:00

If there’s any proof that there are smart people at Fox, it is Predators. Granted, the film was made by Robert Rodriguez’s Troublemaker Studios, but it took a bright man to hire talent from the outside. What’s more impressive is just how damn awesome the film is. Being the ultimate 1980s sci-fi/action throwback, the Predators are back with a vengeance.

The movie wastes no time throwing you into action. Adrian Brody’s Royce awakes in mid-air, flailing helplessly for a ripcord that may or may not be there. Once he’s “safe,” Royce finds himself fraternizing with ex-cons, various military personnel and mercenaries to figure out where they are. But once it’s clear that they’re being hunted, Royce makes the daring decision to fight back.

It’s been a long time since we’ve seen the Predator in a decent flick. Predator 2 wasn’t terrible, but oddly cheesy for a character with such bloodlust. The Aliens vs. Predator flicks are guilty pleasures of mine, yes, but only because they make for fun midnight, b-movies. Otherwise they’re nefarious abortions of great concepts. Predators is the purest sequel to the 1987 classic. The characters are well-written and wonderful examples of testosterone induced heroes you actually care about. Sure, they’re not well developed, but neither were the cast of the original film. We never find out why Royce is such a badass, but he displays said badassary with such believability as he leads the characters through the jungle.

This convincing strut of awesomeness is a real treat from Adrian Brody. (A man who once reminded me of a pencil with Cpl. Max Klinger’s nose.) The man is beefed beyond belief and he pulls off the battlefield hardened anti-hero like he was born for it. Another surprise was Alice Braga’s sniper-rifle toting Isabelle. It’s hard to believe that a female part would work in a movie like this, but her aura echoes the seriousness of action heroines like Sarah Connor and Ripley. And Laurence Fishburne? Comparable to William Hurt in A History of Violence. He’s a true, albeit short, presence.

Meanwhile, the film’s title characters find a complete return to mystery and suspense. Predator 2 and AVP blew up the mythology in a way only George Lucas would love-- Revealing an overly technological Predator home world and a back-story out of a Stargate episode. Here their secrets are reeled back, making for more engaging and mysterious creatures. The jungle is truly where the Predators belong.

We do get some new glimpses in to this savage take on the alien hunters. A blood feud between two different types of Predators is established not only as insight, but a helpful plot device. The “crucified” Predator introduces the creatures to the audience in a brave way. Though previous entries have repeatedly tried to surprise us with the creature-under-the-mask trick, director Nimrod Antal makes the decision to humanize the “lesser” Predator only to reveal much nastier creatures. It works because it’s unexpected. Unlike most sequels these days, Predators refuses to rely on the cliché of repeating classic lines of dialogue, or copying scenes from prequels. If you spot an homage, it’ll be subtle.

This isn’t to say the movie isn’t without faults. The biggest eyebrow raiser begins with the alien world that looks a lot like a jungle on Earth. When one character mentions a specific plant species I couldn’t help but wonder if every alien world looked just like Earth. A new concept perhaps, but pretty dull.

Outside of the minor gripes Predators delivers. It’s not a great movie, but it’s well crafted. No it doesn’t feature “deep” or “moving” characters. But it gives us likable ones to root for. The movie is a classic action romp, dependent on muscles and sweat instead of CGI and explosions. It uses its characters for the heavy lifting and keeps them believable while doing so. That’s far more than I can say for seemingly immortal casts that fly tanks.

*** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - The A-Team

2010-06-26T13:41:00.004-05:00

For those of you who know there’s something wrong with the action genre, but can’t pinpoint exactly what it is, I present you The A-Team. Honestly I’m not sure what drove me to this movie. Having heard such terrible things about Robin Hood and Prince of Persia I bypassed the first few tent-pole flicks of the summer for this one. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have fun to one extent or another, but I’d also be lying if I said I wasn’t cringing during a good portion of it.

After being framed in Iraq, Col. Hannible Smith (Liam Neeson) and his “A-Team” of misfit soldiers escape from prison to clear their name and hunt down the operations group that framed the four of them. Sounds a lot like the television show right? Well… assuming you know anything about the television show.

The storyline of the film, or television series, isn’t the problem. It’s the current state of the action genre that turns this film in to an absurd spiral of mayhem. Does anyone remember how to make an action movie? I’d like to point to Die Hard, a movie that started out with a character that was largely relatable. When John McClain is faced with the impossible task of saving a building of hostages from terrorists the audience goes on a journey with him. We discover his weaknesses, his strengths and what makes him the bold character he is while plummeting through several incursions. The audience has hope that he’ll succeeded of course, but because he is so human and has made notable errors, the audience is in suspense of whether or not he’ll be able to save the day. The explosions and gunfire are a fun, but not the stars of the show. This isn’t the case with The A-Team.

Hannible and his team are introduced to the audience as perfect combatants. Right out of the blocks Hannible is able to escape imprisonment with ease and his team show an equal amount of skill and confidence. Unlike McClain, they are completely disconnected from the audience due to their inhuman abilities to beat down a garage full of eight muscle men, maneuver helicopters like an F-22 and fly a tank. (lol wut?) The tank scene is what made and killed the movie for me. While escaping enemy aircraft, the team jettisons from their exploding plane by tank and maneuver it safely over a lake using the main cannon as propulsion. While I appreciate the absurdity, why should I be worried about these characters anymore if they survive a tank falling from the clouds? Oh, sure, director Joe Carnhan tries to trick the audience into believing these characters will bite the dust due to a healthy gunshot wound to the shoulder. But after the tank thing we know better. These guys will survive anything!

And why do action films these days feel the need to create scenes like the tank sequence? Have we reached a point in cinema where the clichés of jumping out of an exploding building are so bad we have to resort to the ridiculous to appease audiences? Is the classic action movie dead, casting aside great characters in extraordinary situations for extraordinary characters in impossible situations? It can be fun sometimes, I’ll admit, but it’s junk food—And it’s all we get these days. Maybe when I can safely fly a tank in to a lake I’ll appreciate this stuff better.

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Babies

2010-06-25T14:56:00.005-05:00

You know, in a year that’s looking like one of the worst summer movie seasons in recent memory it might seem easy for a documentary about babies to outshine an A-Team. But the beauty about Babies (and humor) lies in its humanity. The most innocent kind of humanity too! Babies isn’t necessarily about a bunch of infants growing up differently, but rather an example of their similarities immediately after birth.

The vague story of this documentary follows four infants: Ponijao from Namibia, Bayar from Mongolia, Mari from Japan, and Hattie from the United States. From there they learn to crawl, mumble, walk and speak, all while being utterly entranced by fresh, new life.

For a lot of the film, Babies turns out to be more of a crowd pleaser than an insightful journey. The humor surrounding these kids as they decide to gnaw on everything, piss where they please and stare obsessively is truly outrageous. But what gets me is how similar they all are. It begs the question: Is this a movie about babies growing up in different cultures or a film showing how irrelevant cultural preference is in the wake of new life.

To exemplify the similarities of these infants, they all have access to animals and treat them with as little reverence as possible. Panijao tugs on the upper lip of a dog, while Bayar steps on a lamb. They’re curious about these animals’ physical structure and they feel they must learn about them by touching-- Despite how uncomfortable the animals get. There is no boundary for these babies in any culture. They study by doing and they have yet to get to a place where they can be fully assimilated in to their respective societies. To me, this is what makes the film so fascinating.

The film rams home that the purist form of human innocence is the untainted and curious baby. If this sounds hysterical, don’t worry, it’s suppose to be. Mari’s parents may be worried about their job, but she’s more concerned about getting a long, cylinder block through a hole. (Something I’m sure her father would prefer her to learn later in life.) But the failure to understand why these toys won’t stay together upsets her so much that she throws her feet to the floor in a fit of rage. Her day is clearly ruined. The result is both hilarious and engaging. Hilarious because from our point of view the situation means nothing; engaging because this is really what is important to her. It’s how she learns and she feels she’s failed.

But I won’t recommend this to the masses. This is a movie with babies being babies for an hour and twenty minutes with no narration. Nothing Youtube can’t give us, right? But while the film admittedly seems less interested in providing a new perspective and more interested in making the crowd go, “Awww…” I’m pretty sure there’s enough insightful material to spark intelligent discussions. And if you don’t feel the same way, at least we can agree that babies will be babies—And honestly, how damn funny is that?

*** out of ****

Music With Meaning: Linkin Park's "From the Inside"

2010-06-09T16:05:00.002-05:00

Does it ever feel like some bands just make videos to songs that don't correlate at all? Critics and fans of Linkin Park have long argued whether or not their videos have anything to do with the song they're put to. In a recent Linkin Park contest, the winner explains "From the Inside" in a way few have probably thought of. Before reading I recommend re-watching the video.

Analysis:

""From The Inside" is not only my favorite Linkin Park song, but it's also, in my opinion, the best music video they've ever released to the public, for a variety of reasons. The video itself is a moving, political piece about the late 80s Iran-Contra scandal, which involved the US government secretly funding a group of Nicaraguan contras, of which those funds would be made by selling weapons to Iran, who were under a strict arms embargo.

After Mehdi Hashemi leaked this information to the media, all hell broke loose. For you see, it was reported that the contras and the US government had joined forces to more easily bring cocaine to the United States. When the world found out, people were terrified, shocked and any other emotion you can imagine. "From the Inside" tells the tale of a young boy growing up in the midst of the Iran-Contra affair, and his explosive emotions dealing with his outrage at how his government, and his people, are reacting to this atrocity. Mobs of common citizens uniting with one another to clash with officers of the law, clad in riot gear, tanks patrolling the streets, etc. etc. Finally, his anger reaches a new height, just as Chester screams out the prophetic lyrics, "I won't waste myself on you!". His anger is physically felt, with the angry mob of citizens and police officers being pushed back forcibly, the little boy's un-drank milk shakes and spills on his parents' coffee table, while Linkin Park is unaffected, playing the final riffs of the song with added vigor, while Chester emotionally twists and turns his body, almost like he feels the entire situation with all of his being and knows the little boy's pain. That's when you realize...

It's 1986, and the little boy is Chester Bennington."

I've always felt that Linkin Park's first foray in to political banter did not begin with Minutes to Midnight, but rather this video. But is there any evidence behind this? Well I don't think the fan is pulling all of this out of his ass. About six seconds in to the video there's a sign that says, "No Contra" and the choice to film the video in Prague speaks worlds considering the aesthetic similarities between it and Iran's more elaborate architecture. As for the child being Chester Bennington-- It sounds like a big leap, but not that big considering the child is actually Bennington's son. Pretty spot on... A little too spot on... To me it sounds like this "fan" is really a crew member "from the inside."

I'm sure the band will not confirm or deny this since they don't exactly like explaining the meaning behind their artistic endeavors. Perhaps one day we'll unlock the secrets behind all their videos ourselves. But if there's any truth behind the analysis for "From the Inside," the band clearly has a motive behind their often creative videos.

MUSIC REVIEW - How To Destroy Angels EP

2010-06-04T12:07:00.005-05:00

I’m a little puzzled at the existence of this How to Destroy Angels. Don’t get me wrong. I think it’s great that Trent Reznor is still making music. The fact he’s decided to do so with his new wife is wonderful… I think. How to Destroy Angels seems like a good idea from afar, but once you get up close you have to wonder what it’s trying to be. A new band? Or Nine Inch Nails with a feminine flare?

Regardless of what this band is suppose to be, the new EP is a huge let down. “A Drowning” and “The Spaces in Between” represent the two best tracks on the project, but they were released prior to the EP. When the rest is poor electronica that sound like scrapped NIN demos why bother?

While “Fur Lined” is probably the next best thing on the album, it won’t keep you from wondering where Trent’s vocals are. At this point the similarities between How to Destroy Angels and NIN are so close that it feels like even lead singer Mariqueen Maandig is putting on her best Reznor impression.

Even “A Drowning,” the best piece on the album, is too NIN inspired to stand alone, but it certainly gives listeners a taste of the real talent behind the project. Meanwhile, “Parasite” would have been better off as an instrumental and “BBB’s” ridiculous lyrics want us to, “listen to the sound of my big black boots.” Why? Is it a comparison of lame reverberation?

Again, “The Spaces in Between” has a lot of fire behind it, and “The Drowning” is an atmospheric masterpiece, but beyond that the EP is an unfocused jumble of half-hearted songs. If Team-Reznor can get stray from the NIN sound with this one it would probably be for the best. The potential for something new and great is there, so I still look forward to a full-length album. But lets stay away from the inspiration of “big black boots” next time. Shall we?

*½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Iron Man 2

2010-06-04T02:51:00.006-05:00

I can’t lie. As I watched Iron Man 2 I was having a great time. I was laughing at the jokes, smiling at the action sequences—Overall I was having fun. So why? Why did I feel like something was off? The answer is somewhat annoying, but rather simple. Iron Man 2 is a trick. It tricks you in to having such a good time that it’s hard to find the flaws. After all, this is a film showcasing Robert Downey Jr.’s smooth, but self-serving swagger, various forms of the universally loved Iron Man, and a strong cast of players in a superhero film. What’s not to love?

As Tony Stark returns to the screen, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) decides its time to put him in his place. In an attempt to avenge the legacy of his father, Vanko agrees to an uneasy partnership with Tony’s less talented corporate rival Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) resulting in slam-bang-boom showdown. Meanwhile, Tony struggles with some issues of his own concerning the arc reactor in his chest, his relationship with Pepper and the inevitable references to the upcoming Avengers film.

There’s a lot going on in this movie. Director Favreau did a pretty good job keeping the story elements as easy to follow as possible, but I wonder how much better it would have been had he taken an axe to the script. The Avengers build up was way too much. You might notice I don’t mention Scarlett Johansson in my synopsis. That’s because she does nothing. Oh sure, we can all pretend she was a monkey wrench in Tony and Pepper’s relationship, but that’s part of the trick. Her involvement in making Pepper jealous was dropped to reveal her as a SHEILD agent and reintroduce Samuel L. Jackson’s Nick Fury. Dear Marvel, we don’t need commercial breaks in the middle of your films to advertise The Avengers. Love, GMAN.

Despite the clunky Avenger stops, Robert Downey Jr. throws on his A-Game with Mickey Rourke, who once again proves why he should have won the Academy Award. (Go to hell Mr. Penn.) Sam Rockwell also throws down an great performance as the dislikable, and embarrassing, Justin Hammer. It’s hard to decide who made the better villain, Rourke or Rockwell. They were both very different characters, but fun to watch despite the bumpy writing surrounding their partnership. If anything held this movie together it was the actors.

Downey Jr. specifically seems to have a way with making the most out of his characters. Here Tony Stark is faced with a slow, but certain death. The film explores this in pieces, showing him drunk and belligerent to the point of battling his own friend. But the script never hits home how badly this is affecting Stark. Instead, Downey Jr. does all the heavy lifting to evoke, at the very least, the idea that he is dieing and has accepted that fate. I wish this were explored further, but with the government trying to get the Iron Man suit, Vanko teaming with Hammer, the Avenger previews and Pepper’s love life… who has time for that?

The climax was fun, but oddly unsatisfying. While War Machine and Iron Man were around to root for, I wondered why Vanko was behind a desk most of the time. That about sums up the movie: Pleasing to sit through, but strange to look back on. How can a movie that was so enjoyable leave such a bitter aftertaste? Being tricked is no fun sometimes, but it's up to the audience to happily embrace the deception. The actors and director masked the weak script the best they could. I admit it! It worked! For the most part...

**½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Kick-Ass

2010-05-26T23:02:00.006-05:00

When you finish a movie and the person next to you exclaims, “…the fuck did I just watch?” it normally gives off a negative reaction toward the film. In my world, more often than not, it means it's truly liked. And like the loose language in the film itself those same words were uttered like a storm of applause when Kick-Ass ended.

When high-school nerd Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) wonders why no one will brave the tights of a superhero, he takes on the task himself. Unfortunately, he inadvertently gets involved with two vigilantes who can do the job better than he and a crime boss confused with their existence. Add some blood, fantastic one-liners and a jar full of irony and you have Kick-Ass.

If you’ve seen only the previews to Kick-Ass you know it’s a comedy. If you don’t know it’s a comedy, guess what? It is. Surprise. But what makes it work is everything it stands for. Kick-Ass asks why we love superheroes and why it’s a good idea and a terrible idea to be one. It answers these questions with a rush of reverence, idiocy and a rather unsettling look at propaganda.

Dave is not a superhero. He is a child in love with iconic fictional characters and what they stand for. He is so enamored by them he decides to become one in hopes of supporting their ideals. Alright. It’s time for another skit of Good Idea/Bad Idea. Good Idea: Standing up for the ideals that Superman and Batman do. The world knows these characters enough to agree with the reasons behind what they do. Furthermore, who doesn’t want to take a stand against evil and all that is wrong? Bad idea: The fictional characters of Batman and Superman have specific skills and powers that force audience members into suspending disbelief. Dressing up in a costume to literally fight crime results in Kick-Ass getting his ass kicked. And rest assured he spends more time having his name handed to him than living up to it. The outcome is hysterical. Love it.

But by far, the show stealer is Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz), an eleven-year-old girl with a stronger skill set than Dave (by miles). Her father (Nic Cage) has brainwashed her into avenging her mother’s death by use of soccer moms’ biggest complaint against superheroes: The violence. Truthfully, her reasons behind being a "superhero" are no different than Batman’s or Spider-Man’s. The controversial part lies in her age. But something surprising happens with her. Instead of having her life ruined Hit Girl becomes responsible. She proves she has not become a mindless killer. Her mission is to avenge her mother and that’s it! Now you could argue she’s been programmed to do that and once the program is finished so is she, but that’s going too far. Plus, a lot of it is simply that it’s hysterical to watch an eleven-year-old girl annihilate the shit out of an army of crime pawns.

And thus we come to the to the final stretch of this amusing social commentary on superheroes and their legacy. I can talk about the film’s intricate meaning all day, but it only works with the action as a very powerful punctuation. Kick-Ass’s final foray into superhero-dom teamed with Hit Girl’s bloody vendetta splatters with a genius mesh of slapstick and action. It is everything you want to happen—Saying it delivers is an understatement. Sure a lot of the action is what takes the authenticity out of the film’s glaring satire. In fact the entire movie takes baby steps toward total absurdity as if it’s trying to trick the audience. There is no connection with reality by the end. But despite that rather muffled flaw the characters make it all work out. So is it funny? Absolutely, but it’s also something to mull over once finished. Recommended for a laugh. Also recommended for a look.

*** out of ****

MUSIC REVIEW - Story of the Year - The Constant

2010-05-25T13:20:00.006-05:00

As fine of a band as Story of the Year is they’ve hit plenty of highs and lows. With The Constant I’m starting to wonder if they have some Star Trek-esque odd/even curse. Their first and third albums were borderline masterpieces, while the sophomore effort was as uninspired as music gets. The Constant doesn’t sink to the low that In the Wake of Determination did, but it’ll have you running back to The Black Swan pretty quickly.

The album starts out well enough with “The Children Sing,” and “The Ghost of You and I,” which is one of the albums’ strongest songs. But would-be epics like “The Burial” come off as monotonous and the slower ballads like “Remember the Time” and “I’m Alive” are instantly forgettable.

And what is it with these bands trying to cash in on Anberlin’s “Feel Good Drag?” Like Atreyu’s “Bleeding is a Luxery,” off of Congregation of the Damned, the opening to “The Dream is Over” sounds suspiciously like Anberlin’s Joseph Milligan rolling in to the “Drag”. It’s also one of the best tracks on The Constant though, so I guess both SotY and Atreyu owe Anberlin a big thank you.

I’ll give a hand to “Holding on to You” as well. It sounds like a throwback to Page Avenue’s gorgeous ballads and it's a catchier piano effort than Black Swan’s "Terrified." Though it's a shame the album didn’t end with “Ten Years Down” or “Time Goes On.” While neither are particularly memorable songs, they would have been more appreciated closers than the messy “Eye for an Eye.” Then again the group has always struggled to end their records well.

Being one of my favorite bands I can hold a nice little place in my heart for some of these tracks. But I also know they can offer so much more. Even at it’s best The Constant isn’t particularly brilliant. It’s just another rock album. Maybe that’s what the record’s title is referring to though…

** out of ****

ANIME CORNER - Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - DVD Part 3

2010-05-24T21:41:00.008-05:00

Well, dear God. Gundam has been many things over the years—Preachy, action packed, contrived, groundbreaking; but never has the series been so relevant as it is with Gundam 00. This comes with an emotional presence that I’ve rarely felt over the series’ thirty-year run of Universal Century, Wing and SEED.

Though I was initially turned off by the inclusion of the Trinity Gundams, their storyline twists in to a very unexpected conclusion. Furthermore, I have to thank those characters for throwing Celestial Being in to self-serving situations that reveal more background about these fantastic characters. Setsuna and Lockon discover a very unsettling bond that actually strengthens their friendship and tightens the Gundam meisters’ relationships as a whole.

The supporting characters never seem to float to the center of the meisters’ lives, but they maintain their relevance due to how the Gundam’s actions affect them. Saji Crossroad (a non-too subtle name for a person inadvertently crossing paths with Setsuna) loses everything he holds dear due to the Gundam’s interventions—Both by Team Trinity and Celestial Being. His storyline should be the most boring and non-crucial arc in the entire series. I have to give the writers props for getting me to care about him and his life. Saji is crucial because his trials represent the flaws behind the Gundam’s actions. He is not a soldier. He’s not a man who will surely seek revenge against the Gundams and become a pilot in a cliché move to be the next villain. He is a scared boy whose life was destroyed by a terrible string of world events and, like most people, he moves on. Never say, “it doesn’t concern me.”

On the flip side, Setsuna’s character reaches a half-hearted conclusion about his plan to fight fire with fire—It’s not assuredly strong, but it’s enough to keep the character going as we see some fan favorites get obliterated. A rather surprising swan song represents one of the best moments in the Gundam series and a demise for anime fans everywhere to remember. (I’m still cursing the sky over this one.)

Meanwhile, Team Trinity’s story is wrapped with much tragedy, escalating the battle against Celestial Being to new heights; placing adversaries in the perfect face-offs and closing the technological gap between Earth’s forces and the Gundam units. This is where the suspense begins to take center stage and the build-up is more than enough to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. Suddenly the Gundams aren’t the god-like juggernauts we’ve seen and the meisters find themselves drawing the short end.

The final chapter to the season isn’t without faults though. Soma Peries, a supporting player I had initially despised, is showcased a great deal but doesn’t become the interesting character she should be until the show’s final moments. Oh, it's season 2 cliffhanger material for sure, but it would’ve been nice to pull that card earlier. The Trinity’s existence is somewhat glazed over. The pseudo-explanation was better than some of Lost’s attempts, but left a faint look of confusion on my face regardless.

Though nothing disappointed me more than Setsuna’s final showdown with Graham Aker. It’s as if the writers ran out of time and decided to slip in Graham’s vendetta at last minute. It was an unjust move for such a strong character, but at least the spouting of differences between him and Setsuna make for an interesting, though pretentious, commentary on the world.

It’s not without some glaring flaws and a lot of questions to answer in season 2, but season 1 of Gundam 00 ends with some intense action, gut-wrenching character closure and a promise that the next twenty-five episodes will be interesting indeed. Universal Century fans can revile it all they want for having powerful Gundams, or pretty-boy character designs. The fact is 00 pushed the series in to a new and relevant place. As good as Unicorn looks, I don’t think it will do the same.

***½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Alice in Wonderland

2010-05-22T21:09:00.006-05:00

It’s very possible that Tim Burton’s best days are long behind him. If you’ve never read Alice in Wonderland, do me a favor. Google it. Read the synopsis on Wikipedia. Or go on Sparknotes. Then continue this review. Done? Pretty ridiculous right? For better or for worse, it sounds like the type of bizarre story that Burton ejaculates on the screen every time he’s given a script. Burton was once an inspiring visual master-- Baking a unique, yet beautiful cake with great characters standing atop some wonderfully bizarre icing. (Edward Scissorhands anyone? Beetlejuice? Batman?) Alright, alright. I should really stop looking at what these great directors used to be… I know. So what’s wrong with Alice in Wonderland? Problem number one, and the main flaw, it doesn’t feel like Alice in Wonderland at all.

Alice, now all-grow’d-up, once again follows a White Rabbit to a bizarre world where she re-unites with the Mad Hatter and other beloved characters. She then struggles to remember her previous journey to Wonderland and accept the destiny of saving it... and slay a dragon. “Well no shit it doesn’t feel like Alice in Wonderland, GMAN! It’s a different story!” Noted. But you can’t make a sequel to a classic book without keeping to what made it legendary. Instead, the unfittingly epic battles pushed the film’s atmosphere closer to a Narnia flick than anything Lewis Carroll would’ve approved for Alice.

Burton stated that he felt the book was nothing more than Alice wandering from one inane character to another. Perhaps, but it was the quirkiness of these characters and the lack of sense-making that garnered such a huge following. I’m sure fans would have rather watched Alice recite “Tis the Voice of the Lobster” instead of slay a dragon. I stand firm in the position that casual moviegoers who are not familiar with the source material could've also enjoyed the peculiar world without a re-play of Prince Caspin’s climax. The action was a cop out and it was an unnecessary focus to a world that was fine without it.

Oh, sure, the visuals are great and the character designs are what we have come to expect of Burton’s films. Surprisingly, even Johnny Depp is subdued, keeping the film focused on the title character. I was in shock that this was one of the praiseworthy things about the movie. I mean, really-- How easy would it have been for Depp’s Hatter to upstage Mia Wasikowska’s Alice? Do I shake the editor’s hand or Burton’s? I know it’s not the writer’s doing.

Even with the unlikelihood that Alice would have gone on such a bombastic journey in Wonderland, I suppose the film’s story could have worked had it maintained the odd quirks that make Wonderland a wonder. Lewis Carroll is often accused of being high while writing Alice’s adventures. I can’t say I thought the same of Burton while watching his vision. (Although I’m sure someone could make the case…) Such a misfire comes off as utterly forgettable and that, my three or four readers out there in the inter-webs, is a much greater sin than being outright terrible. (Example.)

* out of ****

Top 5 Best and Worst of 2009

2010-03-06T03:10:00.010-06:00

It’s that time kids. My top five best and worst films of 2009. The list pretty much speaks for itself, so lets roll with it:

TOP 5 BEST OF 2009

5. Public Enemies **** out of ****
Nope it wasn’t nominated for anything. It wasn’t even particularly well received by critics, but that’s their loss. Johnny Depp flexes some of his best acting muscles and Christian Bale is equally impressive. Meanwhile, it’s absolutely criminal that Billy Crudup was not nominated for a supporting actor. Despite the lack of attention given to this fine film, Michael Mann made an excellent comeback with this top notch, suave and thrilling period piece. Gangster films tend to look worse and worse as years go by, but Public Enemies put the “cool” back in it while extending the beautiful merits of digital cinema.

FULL REVIEW

4. Up **** out of ****
A movie I wish I saw earlier in the year. After Pixar proved they could go outside the box with their stories in Wall-E, Up proved that great story telling can be minimalistic, but take different forms—And I’m not talking about the fact it’s a CG animated motion picture. With a gut-wrenching opening, impressively chalked with nearly no lines, and a wonderful reverence to the value of time (and life), Up ranks among Pixar’s very best films.

NOT REVIEWED

3. Inglourious Basterds **** out of ****
Where do I begin? If it’s not Tarantino’s best movie, which I think it is, then it’s at least my favorite. A return to form for the great director, Inglourious Basterds is tiled with memorable characters, great laughs and some of the most fascinating scenes to grace the screen in years. His craft has never looked this perfect and my love for film has seldom been as passionate as it is when I watch this movie.

FULL REVIEW

2. Up in the Air **** out of ****
Jason Reitman knocks another one out of the park. Bringing text-book modernism back to the screen turned out to be a wonderful move. Up in the Air explores the paths of living in the current economic climate and ends at a destination of your choice. Strong and very funny characters carry the audience along for the journey.

FULL REVIEW

1. The Hurt Locker **** out of ****
And this is the one. Kathryn Bigelow’s war tale isn’t so much about war as it is about those who fight them. Focusing on an adrenaline fueled main character, played by the impressive Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker expresses the deepest and darkest fears of those involved in war—Including the love for it. It’s the Saving Private Ryan of our generation and it scares the hell out of me. “Awesome.” Simply put, and you can’t call too many “bests of the year” this, but it is absolutely “awesome.” I’ll be rooting for it Sunday night.

FULL REVIEW

TOP 5 WORST MOVIES OF 2009

5. X-Men Origins: Wolverine *½ out of ****
Though I’ll admit it gets better with repeated viewings, it’s still a mess. What should have been a dark, psychological origin story turns in to a bad X-Men 4, with characters that shouldn’t be involved and some really poor writing. Sure the action is fun, but reducing the title character to survive every suicidal stunt possible makes him a bore. So why care about him?

FULL REVIEW

4. The Men Who Stare At Goats * out of ****
Hippy bullshit for the masses. An all-star cast of some of the world’s best actors slip and fall face first in the dirt clot that is this movie’s script. Incoherent, contrived and contradicting-- Goats had the potential of a great movie. But it’s not a great movie. It’s just a great, big, boring disappointment. What a waste.

FULL REVIEW

3. The Hangover * out of ****
Because there’s not enough stupid, college student targeted Mt. Everests of crap out there. What scares me is that this film, the same EXACT humor we’ve seen in other terrible movies i.e. Wedding Crashers, Superbad, Knocked Up, 40 Year Old Virgin..etc… is what passes off as funny to its target audience: Dumb college students. The future of our world assuring more bad comedy is made! Lets go through the list of predictability: Drunk jokes. Check. Not sure what happened on the “crazy” night before to incite certain [non]humor. Check. Bad Las Vagas clichés. Check. Bad movie. Check and mate.

NOT REVIEWED

2. Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen ½ out of ****
Big, loud and stupid can be fun if the flick has certain charm to it. But this doesn’t. Bay tries way too hard to make it the “ultimate” summer flick, but bigger isn’t always better, and a lack of restraint seems to be dangerous. It’s as if the movie prefers to be as dumb as possible—Such a film makes me wonder how some directors/writers get away with what they do. Then again, what producer okays it?

FULL REVIEW

1. Dragonball: Evolution ½ out of ****
‘Nuff said…

FULL REVIEW

MOVIE REVIEW - Up in the Air

2010-03-06T01:52:00.004-06:00

There’s a lot to be said about a film that examines the philosophy of living space. Materialistic living and courtly relationships have to be questioned without resolve in order to pull off the idea that there are many ways to go about one’s life. Up in the Air does just that—Without turning in to a giant cliché of any given film genre, director Jason Reitman’s latest masterpiece is relevant enough to tantalize the hearts of those unsure about jobs, relationships and, ultimately, where the hell to go in life.

Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) travels nearly non-stop from city to city to “dismiss” people being laid-off. When his frequent flyer miles plunges him in to a potential relationship, (Alex) an ambitious, but a naive new co-worker (Natalie) shadows him and prompts him to look at his happy seclusion in a different light.

Once again my vague synopses put readers at a disadvantage, but to divulge any further would take away from the films’ experience. Furthermore, as preachy as I make this movie, it actually stays away from being over-bearing. Instead of feeling like a pretentious art house boob with unrelatable insights, it reaches far in to the climate of today’s troubles and beyond.

Clooney’s Bingham is the man everyone does and does not want to be. He twists and turns throughout the movie with a slow exit from certainty. Is living on the move from one hotel to another really what he wants? Is Natalie’s American dream more likable? Is Ryan’s poor, underprivileged brother-in-law’s quest for love-over-success worth it? Like most modernistic films there’s not so much a straight answer as there is an examination. And there in lies the beauty of Up in the Air—It really is up in the air.

One of Reitman’s great talents is always pulling out the best of characters in the worst conditions, and what’s great is that their choices are never predictable! If Juno was his take on adult-like adolescence, Up in the Air is his extreme evolution of characters from Thank You for Smoking. Bingham, like Eckhart’s character in Smoking, is suave, smart and more professional than your dad on career day. But later on the many roads of life haunt him; though he ushers those who have lost jobs to take different paths every day, the same suggestion causes him to lose a focus many people can relate to. (Don’t tell me you’ve never looked at the ceiling and wondered, “What the hell am I suppose to be doing/should do/want to do.?” Angst. Tears. My Chemical Romance. All that fun stuff.)

Thankfully, instead of telling the audience there’s only one correct path, Reitman leaves us with a mesmerized Ryan Bingham, looking at the different paths he could take for his future. Reminding me of Cast Away's ending, Up in the Air throws a whole list of air travel destinations instead of a three-way road. I find Bingham’s choices a little more realistic. Sure such a list can be overwhelming, but when is life not overwhelming? Plus look at all the fun destinations! I really enjoyed where Reitman went with this film and if he continues this type of quality he may end up being one of the very best modern directors of our time. If it's not his best film, it's close.

**** out of ****

Elements of Film Art - Sullivan's Travels and Preaching Not to Preach

2010-01-27T03:01:00.005-06:00

I'll be posting these "reaction papers" every week. Originally for a class, these short write-ups are mainly simple overviews of elements from films I've screened in classes. These are primarily written for those who have seen the film, so if you haven't watched the movie of topic it won't make a lot of sense. Moving on...

--------------------

It’s amazing how one’s perception on a film changes within its own running time. Although I greatly enjoyed Sullivan’s Travels by the end of the movie I could only think about how its existence is a contradiction.

Sullivan’s Travels begins with great promise, but as it moves forward I can’t help but wonder if it lost its identity. Supposedly a screwball comedy, Sullivan’s Travels certainly doesn’t evoke the same laughter that His Girl Friday does. In fact the comedy feels very second tier to the dramatic elements. It’s almost as if director Sturges wanted exactly what Sullivan wants in the movie: To make a serious picture about the men and women suffering during the economic crisis. But to avoid looking too hypocritical, given the script’s “message,” he sprinkles some comedy here or there to pass it off as a screwball delight.

Now I doubt that’s really how Sturges thought of this movie, but its insight does confuse me. After spending so much time with a montage on the poor and watching the characters experience similar conditions the audience is given an ending that makes it all feel like a fluke. If laughter is really all people need, or want, then why did a “tramp” steal Sullivan’s shoes and money?

While looking through information on Sullivan’s Travels I stumbled upon a quote from The Hollywood Reporter that adequately sums up my feelings for the film, “[The film] fails to heed the message that writer Sturges proves in his script. Laughter is the thing people want-not social studies." Indeed if Sullivan’s final line were the case, where’s the laughter? Watching an ocean of homeless engulf an alley and dine on trashcans isn’t exactly hysterical. Sure Sullivan and “The Girl” grant us a few laughs, but it’s never a straight shot.

Going back to my His Girl Friday comparison, a movie I consider the king of screwball comedies, that film granted laughs every ten seconds. Sullivan’s Travels, however, lingers from one genre to another without a smooth transition. (For example, after the amusing image of a sick Sullivan swearing he’ll go back on the streets fades away the audience is gifted with a depressing montage of tramp-life at its finest.) Despite its screwball comedy reputation there’s heavy attention to serious drama. Include a moral that makes my head spin and I remain confused as to how seriously I should (or should not) take the film. On the other hand, such a contradicting film could be considered a work of genius. Like a double negative, maybe it’s supposed to support both a social commentary and a surrender to thoughtless entertainment. Although, either way it still feels messy.

MOVIE REVIEW - The Hurt Locker

2010-01-21T17:51:00.004-06:00

About halfway through The Hurt Locker, Sgt. William James (Jeremy Renner) stumbles upon a crude bomb workspace with a locker standing between two desks. There is no mention of it by the characters. They don’t open it, hell, I don’t think they even look at it. I can assume there are only bomb parts in that locker, thus making it a candidate for the film’s title. Of course the real hurt locker is present-day Iraq, but I have to wonder if that ominous locker was placed for its own aesthetic metaphor. It may sound pretentious, but it’s these same nuances that make The Hurt Locker the masterpiece it is.

Sgt. William James becomes the new team leader of an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. His teammates deem him reckless in his search for adrenaline—In contrast Sgt. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) is extremely by-the-book with the way he handles bomb tasks, and Spc. Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) lives every day in fear of death. The disparity between James and Eldridge is the most interesting comparison of today's soldiers. Whereas James will march in to a wired car without any protection, Eldridge is constantly seeking counsel from commanding officers. The film begins with a quote from journalist Chris Hedges, "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." This line becomes the crutch of James’ character, and it’s a crutch that scares the hell out of me.

Going back to the EOD’s infiltration of an insurgent bomb facility, James finds himself with a dead body-bomb in which he believes was a child he befriended earlier. Whether it is the child or not becomes a mute point as James continuously searches for more reasons to enter combat. This is a side of reality I’ve always been interested to see explored. So few movies touch on the soldiers who know nothing but war. Sure, First Blood was built on that, but it didn’t retain the believability that The Hurt Locker does. It’s not that James is a bad person. He’s not a warmonger or a ruthless killer by any means. In fact he may have fired the least amount of weapons in the entire movie. He simply only knows how to acknowledge his existence in the battlefield.

Along with the near-maddening mentality the characters ooze off the screen comes a tension unmatched by most films of the last decade. Prepare to chew your arm off as a frustrated James scrambles to defuse a car bomb while more and more on-lookers gather. Any of them could hold the detonator. Any of them could have planted the bomb. But no one knows for sure. It’s maddening that this is the type of combat that goes on today. Such knowledge only increases the nails-on-a-chalkboard suspense that crosses from the screen to your gut.

Oh no worries. Your stomach gets a break from all the punching the movie gives you now and then. (Amusingly, our main characters play a “manly” game of hitting each other in the gut that seems to embody what the movie is doing to its audience.) But when the last minute of the movie spins to Sgt. James’s destiny a far more terrifying realization hit me. He’s necessary. In a world with such insane venues as Iraq, this fictional character is a must. And then, perhaps just as scary, I become at ease with the idea that people like him exist. Should I? Don't know. Maybe I feel safer or maybe I'm just glad its not me out there.

With this fixation on William James, I can’t say The Hurt Locker is specifically about the Iraq War. It’s even possible the title refers to any battlefield a man stands on, but I won’t proclaim the movie is, “just about war.” Such a cliché undermines its value. Rather, The Hurt Locker stands for warriors—Warriors of today and their mentality during battle. They might be scared or they might be fearless. They could feel empowered or they might appear powerless. They might not like each other, but they’ll live with each other. The Hurt Locker doesn’t stand on a side of the political fence it worries about the modern day American soldier. If this film is any indication their job isn’t as easy as looking for a sign that says “bad guy” and squeezing the trigger. Nope, when the smoke clears, The Hurt Locker feels more like a horror picture than a war flick. Perhaps that’s an indicator of its realism. I’d have to go to Iraq to know for sure. Watch this movie and let me know if you're up for the trip.

**** out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Avatar

2010-01-20T01:59:00.004-06:00

When Star Wars launched its phenomenon in 1977 it was completely unpredicted. This little fantasy/sci-fi picture defined a decade and has since continued to be one of the top money making franchises of all time. There was no hype. It was an explosion of bewildering success and greatness. So it’s of no surprise that studios and filmmakers have tried to recreate that scenario; but the idea that you can create such leviathans with sheer will is arrogance cooked on stupidity. The latest example is the decade’s ultimate hype-machine: Avatar.

The movie’s story? Let’s put it this way. While watching the movie my significant other leaned in to note how similar it was to Disney’s Pocahontas. My mouth hit the floor with what I can only assume was an astonishing thud—I’m sure I looked like a sorority girl on game night. She nailed it! Mind you this was said to me before either one of us saw THIS. Sure, she could have said Dances With Wolves and she would have been equally correct, but Avatar’s resemblance to the Disney film is so uncanny I had to stop and think: James Cameron had fifteen years to refine this script?

Whatever… Now you know the story of Avatar to an absolute tee. Is the absurd predictability of the story a problem? That depends on the audience. If you’re in to the irrelevant exercise of looking for originality you’ll probably hate Avatar. If you can stomach the fact that this story has been told at least four or five times per decade, post-1950s, then it can certainly be a rewarding experience. Otherwise enjoy the over-exposition of a cliché, trigger-happy badass and his military constantly bullying the savage protagonists and their “enlightened” ways. Are military folk always this thoughtless? Are native savages always right no matter what? Is blue alien sex really that hot? Yikes…

So, to that reward I mentioned. As you might have imagined, the special effects really are fantastic. Though I feel the comparisons to Jurassic Park are exaggerated, Avatar has a claim to creating photo-realistic characters and environments that will do well to aid future special effects features. The most intriguing thing about Avatar is its setting. Pandora, the planet, is truly beautiful and an incredible technical achievement that I can bank on being used again and again. Couple that with Cameron’s penchant for aggressive action sequences and you have a recipe for some exciting visuals.

However, it is a shame that these visuals are wasted on such derivative designs. As cool as the world is, putting two sets of front legs on every known animal on Earth and then painting it blue isn’t exactly what I call creative. But neither is the giant robots conjuring images from The Matrix Revolutions.

Okay, okay, I’m probably being a bit harsh. Avatar isn’t a terrible film at all, really. For its unoriginality it’s actually well told and boasts some impressive performances from most of the major players—Especially Sam Worthington! But the success of Cameron’s film relies on the hype he built for it. There was no explosion and, like the movie, there was nothing unexpected about it raping the box office. But if you strip off the fancy effects and incredible advertising you're left with just another character epic. Cameron use to be a master of great and original filmmaking, now he’s proving gimmicks are enough to make a “good movie.” It frightens me there’s a majority okay with this.

** out ****

Download to Donate: Haiti

2010-01-19T23:11:00.006-06:00

Linkin Park is in battle-mode with their Music For Relief foundation. They've brought some artists together and released a free benefit EP for Haiti. The catch? No catch. The music is free, whether you donate or not. But unless your dick is up your own mouth, you should donate-- Especially if you download the songs.

Excellent cause and organization Linkin Park. Donate what you can, if you can.

LINK: MUSIC FOR RELIEF - DOWNLOAD TO DONATE: HAITI

Tracks:

1) Not Alone - Linkin Park

2) Mother Maria - Slash feat. Beth Hart

3) Never Let Me Down - Kenna feat. Mike Shinoda and Chad Hugo

4) Heroes - Peter Gabriel

5) Still (Acoustic Session) - Alanis Morissette

6) Resurrection - Lupe Fiasco and Kenna feat. Mike Shinoda

7) We Are One - Hoobastank

8) The Wind Blows - All-American Rejects

9) It Must Be Love - Enrique Iglesias

10) Typical Situation (Live) - Dave Matthew Band

Predator Buzz

2010-01-16T23:31:00.006-06:00

So the other day while I was wasting more of my life, surfing movie news sites, nerd forums and gangbang videos co-staring AIDs, I tripped over the rather shocking realization that the the next Predator movie, Predators, comes out this July. And here I was thinking it was set for a 2011 release. Currently, I'm not sure if the movie has wrapped production and is on the editing room floor. Although it wouldn't surprise me if it wasn't half-way done shooting given how Fox enjoys the most unrealistic production schedules. On the other hand Robert Rodriguez's "studio" seems to have full reign of the film. Who knows where it sits currently.

The director, with the unfortunate name of Nimrod Antal, seems to be getting some positive buzz from this production. I hope his previous works (Vacancy, Armored) aren't a reflection on what this movie is.

Staring Adrian Brody and Laurence Fishburne, I can only hope Rodriguez's hand in the script will make this the Predator film it should be. As much as I enjoyed AVP-R in a sick, "so bad, it's good" kind of way, I have no desire to revisit that type of mindlessness. I long for a Predator feature with the suspense and ambiguity John McTiernan fed us in the original. (And some messy kills fitting of an alien hunter.)

So where did my shameless surfing lead me? To some rather cool on-set pictures:

You really can't tell how good the movie is going to be from these pictures alone, but I'm enjoying the look of both the human and "yuatjaian" characters. Some fans have pointed out that if you look behind Adrian Brody, in the second photo, it features Stan Winston's original design of the creature. I think its both too far away and too blurry to make that claim, but time will tell. I really like these designs though. Come on Nimrod! No more AVP foul-ups are tolerated. Hell, these days Predator 2 seems like a worthwhile bar to hit!

Predators, in theaters July 9th. This year. (WAAH?)

Lionsgate May Acquire Terminator Rights

2010-01-14T15:27:00.006-06:00

Now that you've read the title lets assume you've asked, "For how much?" Well, apparently for the lowest common denominator. $15 million. (Halcyon was trying to sell it for $60-70 million. Ouch!) The Terminator rights aren't exactly being dogpiled by a lot of studios and my hopes of Warner Brothers acquiring it seems to be nowhere in sight. (So things are looking bleak for The Sarah Connor Chronicles.) The next in line is Summit, who is coming up in the ranks with the money they've made from the Twilight movies and a quality picture with The Hurt Locker. Despite Twilight I'd prefer Summit to grab the rights, but I have a strong feeling that's not happening.

So what say The Resistance out there? Is the studio that's given us the horrendous Saw series, Hostel, Delta Farce, the Transporter trilogy and bad documentaries really what we want for the series? And what of TSCC? Will it get a second go from Warner Brothers when the final decision is released this February?

You see that mushroom cloud? That's not Skynet. That's the franchise...

MOVIE REVIEW - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

2010-01-12T19:16:00.006-06:00

EDIT: Synopsis fixed for the Boston-ites/hard core fans.

Oh, what a rush. The Boondock Saints doesn’t really have the greatest reputation among film critics, but I suppose the liberal media would slam movies like these. Being something of the year’s anti-Men Who Stare at Goats, I was pleased with the no holds barred approach of The Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day. So I’m going to side-step the educated, snob-a-thon critic bullshit this time and praise it for what it is: A movie that hangs its nuts without any intention of putting them away.

After going in to hiding, the death of a priest lures the MacManus Brothers back to Boston for more “gratuitous violence.” But it turns out to be the genesis of a much larger problem that goes back before their conception. Thus, Daddy MacManus steps in to confront his past. Among the returnees are newcomers Clifton Collins Jr. as Romeo and Julie Benz as Agent Eunice Bloom. I wasn’t too keen on their addition at first, but once the movie gets rolling you won’t want them to leave.

While the film attempts to answer some questions about the MacManus family we still get what we came for—More punishment than The Punisher could ditch out. The question of whether or not they’re doing right or wrong is never brought up again. Frankly it doesn’t need to be. Murphy and Connor are completely at piece with their job and firmly believe in destroying evil. What's important is this leads to more over-the-top action sequences, some hysterical dialogue and, yes, the return of the “fucking rope.” Add to the mix Rocco’s cameo (and his cat) which distinctly slams everything Men Who Stare at Goats stood for with, “I am so sick of all of this self help, twelve step, leftover hippie generation bullshit!” and you have a recipe for a man movie. What is a man movie you ask? Many have forgotten. Predator and Dirty Harry fit the bill, but man movies don’t quite jump at you like they use to. I blame George Lucas. I can’t think of any examples since Greedo shot first. That’s another rant for another day.

What’s important to come away with is accepting, and enjoying, how the film makes no apology for being the cinematic equivalent of a hardened assassin. It is an exercise in badassery (yup, my word again) and a non-to-subtle reminder of everything a guy wishes he would be. It spits at political correctness with a grimace and smirks while shooting bad guys. Sure there isn’t much character development, but how do you develop characters as hardened and devout as the MacManus Brothers? While the most interesting players tend to be the new kids and the talented Billy Connelly as “Il Duce” (Papa MacManus), we never lose that aspiring glance we give Connor and Murphy as they slide to their knees with two guns. Why? ‘Cause they’re just that damn cool.

I’m not here to say The Boondock Saints II is the greatest balls out action flick ever, or even of the year, but it is a satisfying sequel with no interest in social sensitivity. It doesn’t make me wonder how right or wrong their actions are like the first one, but I don’t think director Troy Duffy is too concerned with those questions here. No, this time it’s about gifting the fans and keeping The Saints true to their word. Lets top it off with a very surprising ending that begs for another sequel and the politically incorrect extermination of “evil men.” Bring back the MacManus Brothers. I’m ready for round three!

*** out of ****

Spider-Man 4 Not Happening. Reboot Launches in 2012.

2010-01-12T01:14:00.004-06:00

Well it looks like all that tireless villain speculation for the fourth Spider-Man was just wasted bandwidth. Director Sam Raimi has left the project due to a weariness of the film's 2011 release date. Tobey Maguire has jumped ship with him. Beforehand John Malkovich had confirmed he would be the Vulture. But now there will be no Malkovich, no Vulture, no Raimi, no Maguire, NO SPIDER-MAN 4. (Just in case I couldn't make it clear enough.)

So what will happen with the Spidey franchise? Well for those hoping for the series to land in the laps of Marvel/Disney-- Keep praying. Sony still has rights to produce Spider-Man films and will be doing so in the form of a reboot. Oh. Shit. For those of you happy a sequel isn't happening, tell me, is this much better?

So instead of pushing back the Spider-Man 4 release date, Sony will be producing the reboot for a 2012 release. (They couldn't push Spidey 4 to that date? Are they really dumb enough to believe the world is ending that year or what?)

As the story goes James Vanderbilt wrote both Spider-Man 4 and a reboot script as a plan B. I suspect there were some anticipated script disagreements between the studio and Raimi. (I assume over villains.) So talks went nowhere, Raimi got fed up with Sony, not wanting a Spidey 3 repeat and now we'll get a potentially cheaper Spider-Man flick with a different director, different star and (thank Christ) no Dunst.

I can definitely say I have no excitement for this project. It feels like a cheap business move and, well... it looks like a cheap business move. After Raimi and Maguire have successfully created a recognizable and iconic universe Sony's going to reboot it? Who specifically is afraid to pay up at Sony? I think this whole "reboot" idea is getting a little out of hand. When it was done with Batman Begins it was because the franchise was in need of rescuing. Not to mention it had been close to a decade since Clooney's Bat-shit. But to abandon a successful and recent franchise like Raimi's Spider-Man is just an odd and hasty move. Green over great I guess.

But I can't totally give Sony the middle finger. No Dunst is always a plus, right?

Trailer of Interest - The Vicious Kind

2009-12-09T23:13:00.004-06:00

I tripped over this little gem not too long ago. Yeah, the trailer isn't all that well cut and it's one of those previews that tries to look too independent in order to get all the indie-cock sucking, snob-knobs hard. Regardless, I was particularly impressed with this Adam Scott in the lead role. Furthermore, J.K. Simmons. Yeah, in context that's a complete sentence. Deal with it.
The movie looks like it carries some fine character comedy and dry humor. It's got my attention on all fronts.
The flick has a limited release roll out starting December 11th.

HYPE-O-METER Scale 1-10: 8

Trailer of Interest - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Teaser)

2009-12-07T19:50:00.003-06:00

So I wasn't too keen on the sixth film. It wasn't quite the blunder the fourth movie was, but as time goes by I look on it less and less fondly. After the incredible fifth entry and the "holy shit" trailers cut for the sixth film I expected a lot more.
It's really clear this trailer was cut from footage they were scraping at the bottom of the barrel for-- I mean how much have they really filmed by this point? I'm surprised they got the footage they did for such an early teaser-- And a good one at that. Oh, I don't think it's anything to wet your panties over just yet, but the potential is there. Lets get excited, yet again, and hope, yet again, these movies deliver.

HYPE-O-METER Scale 1-10: 7

Terminator Franchise Gets New Home in February

2009-12-05T03:36:00.003-06:00

The Terminator franchise is still for sale and the bankrupt Halcyon, current owner of the franchise, apparently wasn't swooned with Joss Whedon's $10,000 bid. Originally, the franchise was estimated to be bought by January 2010, but now negotiations (with who?) seem to be set to end in February.

Anyone want to buy it? Hell, if I had the money, I would! Then I'd put The Sarah Connor Chronicles back in production faster than you can say, "I'll be back!"

It looks like Halcyon is really hurting though. They're selling every prop, set piece and lights (almost "trashed" by Bale) to movie collectors crazy enough to love a brick you might have seen on screen.

Was Terminator Salvation worth the pain guys? Regardless, I hope Warner Brothers gets the franchise, makes some badass movies and gives The Sarah Connor Chronicles a proper send off. No, I haven't given up hope. Nor should you.

SAVETHESCC.COM

How Cool Is This?

2009-12-02T23:27:00.007-06:00

So movie mag Empire Magazine went all out with their 20th anniversary, asking twenty-seven actors to recreate iconic roles in stylish clothing. This is quite entertaining. Click on any of the below to enlarge.

Can we guess all the characters and movies kids?

And my favorite:
Solid pictures. I'm not big on celebrity photo shoots, but this is easily the coolest shoot I've ever had the good fortune of flipping through. Bravo Empire. Do more!

The Harry Potter 7 Trio

2009-12-01T23:36:00.007-06:00

And in a rather uninspiring picture. I suppose we always start with lame pictures don't we? But with this being the final film(s) I thought it would be fun to compare their last adventure with their first:

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Well Ron doesn't look like a deformed horse anymore and I want to give Ms. Watson a round of applause for growing up so, SO well. Finally I can admit she's attractive without feeling like Roman Polanski. (I'd say Michael Jackson, but that ship has sailed hasn't it?)

Now I'm going to compare the Harry Potter franchise to one that's trying to be like it:

Failure's a bitch.

Potter 7, November 2010.

It Speaks For Itself...

2009-11-30T20:22:00.002-06:00

But I'll say it anyway...

Badass!

I'm sure the general, non-comic book geeks out there are wondering who the silver Iron Man is. The answer is War Machine, piloted by Col. Rhodes played by Terrance-- Oh... Right... Played by Don Cheadle.

REALITY CHECK Now as awesome as this is I do want to skeet some of my doubt on this post. As the time draws nearer for Iron Man 2 I begin to have the same weary feeling I had for X-Men Origins: Wolverine. What type of weary feeling you ask? Lets just say my concerns came to fruition.

It's very possible Iron Man 2 will NOT walk in the footsteps of great super-sequels like X2, Spider-Man 2 and, of course, The Dark Knight. Something about the amount of villains, heroes and recent knowledge of Mr. Downey Jr.'s hand in writing the thing stinks.

But until its release, I'll enjoy the really swank poster. You should as well.

Spanish Trailer Gets Creative With Lost Promos

2009-11-30T15:12:00.003-06:00

Been keeping up with the plethora of Lost Season Six footage? If you have you're lying because none has been released. As show-runners Damon Lindelof and Carton Cuse have said, they're keeping a tight lid on the Lost spoilers and showing no new footage until the season airs. So what do we get in the meantime. Trailers like this:

Wow. Pretty terrible right? I understand the need to use old footage, but does that excuse a shitty trailer? There is an absurd shitstorm of fanmade trailers that are lightyears more exciting than what ABC has regurgitated here.

In the meantime check out this Spanish trailer to Season Six. Like the American promos they don't give us any new footage, but the superimposed chess theme works well. Very cool:

Why isn't this ours? Good work ABC. My girlfriend should enjoy the Radiohead-ness as well. The final season premiers Feb. 2nd, 2010.

IMAGE - Worst Choice for Best Picture Nom.

2009-11-23T01:56:00.002-06:00

Ha! That's pretty terrible alright. Before some of you leap out of your chairs screaming at the sky in either victory or melancholy look closely at the picture. It notes "Comedy + Musical," which is a category in the Golden Globes. Not that this pile of crap is worth even that, but really, who cares about the Golden Globes?

Hangover blew.

Get In Line for Spidey 4's Black Cat

2009-11-18T23:48:00.012-06:00

I'm shocked this is as big of a deal as it is. (Or maybe it's not.) Oh, don't worry. I promise this won't be a glorified comic book-to-movie fanboy rant like my last post. Actually, I hardly touch comics and I certainly don't know much about this post's title character. (No, not Spidey.)But the attention around it is what gets me.

Rumors are flying that the Black Cat will be the next pseudo-villain in the Spider-Man lineup. At first I thought, "Oh, okay. So it's Spider-Man's Catwoman basically?" Apparently that's almost too much of the case as I've only read negative feedback from fans since this rumor began.

Now for those fretting about the idea of Black Cat serving as the web-slinger's next antagonist hold on to this bleak hope. Sony has apparently denied the rumors. Regardless, the possibility of Black Cat in Spider-Man 4 is looking inevitable. With so many rumors flying about actresses trying for the part I think it's safe to say she's in.

So who's up for the role? Well lets plow through the list of rumored cats. Rachel McAdams was the original rumor, and heavily favored by fans who were okay with Black Cat's break in to live action. But the actress has since denied those rumors. Shame really. I think she would have really nailed the part. (And the Spider. Gigiddy.)

Next up, British babe Romola Garai. Don't know who that is? Don't worry, no one does. Admittedly, she looked the part, but with credentials like Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights I think we can boot her out.

My personal favorite out of the lot is Julia Stiles. I know, I know. Why? Admittedly, she may not look the part, but she takes on the tough-babe persona pretty well. (Bourne anyone?) I feel like Black Cat would be the next big step for her. Granted, I don't know much about the Black Cat, but I do know if you're going to do the whole Catwoman/Batman relationship with Spider-Man the chick better be one tough cookie. Lets just say the bell collar would fit around Julia's neck pretty well.

Finally, we have Anne Hathaway. Supposedly the producers are very interested in giving her a staring role. Now, I like Anne Hathaway, she's a fine actress, but the Black Cat? I did grab the right picture from the internet, right? Very white, (or really blonde?) hair and all? Does she fit the complexion? Would white hair be a bit much for Hathaway? Aw, whatever. With all the advances in special effects and what not I'm sure it isn't a big deal. Even still she doesn't strike me as someone who could pull off the look.

So what about you crazy Spider-Man fanatics out there? Is it worth seeing Black Cat on the big screen? I don't have too much of a problem with it, but, again, I don't know much about her beyond wikipedia. I will say this. It might be worth it if we can get Kirsten Dunst out of these flicks. Can we all agree she's the worst love interest for a hero in any of these superhero movies? Yeah. You agree. She's a bitch. Go ahead. Bring in the home wrecker.

HA-HA!

The Shadow of the True X-Men 3

2009-11-18T02:29:00.011-06:00

Reading this kind of stuff infuriates me, but at the same time it fascinates me. It’s incredible to see a bad idea come to life and a good idea left in the trash heap. To be fair X-Men: The Last Stand actually had some intriguing ideas, but besides being executed terribly they also paled in comparison to what could have been.

“Huh? What could it have been?” For starters it could have been good, but that’s the obvious answer. During a Slashfilm podcast co-writer of X2, Mike Dougherty, mentioned story ideas for the third movie he had on the drawing board with director Bryan Singer.

For those using the Internet for the first time, Bryan Singer directed the first two X-Men films. When he was asked to direct his dream project, Superman Returns, he left Fox’s X-Men franchise at the mercy of director Brett Ratner-- The man responsible for arguably the worst conclusion to a single franchise: X-Men: The Last Stand.

But before Brett Rat-Fink mutilated the storyline and Dougherty left with Singer for Superman Returns, there was a very solid blueprint for the third movie. Screenrant was nice enough to extract Dougherty’s X-Men 3 story from the podcast.

THE SETUP:

“The idea – you open up with Alkali Lake [where Jean Grey supposedly died in X2] but it’s completely barren and dried up and there are these odd reports of strange phenomena going on around the world accompanied by bright lights in the sky.”

“The idea would be that both the X-Men and the Brotherhood realize that, essentially, a very god-like force had entered their reality and that it was causing disruptions around the world – mutant prisons being decimated. I had pitched an idea about a fleet of cargo ships getting torn apart in the Atlantic and you found out that they were shuttling mutants as slave labor.”

THE MEAT:

“So basically you found out that the Phoenix [Jean Grey] was going ‘round the world taking things into her own hands and that she had basically returned as a god, which they did touch upon in X3. She had viewed herself as above the conflict, that she was here to end things on her terms, she was basically sick of the fighting and she was going to take things into her own hands and she didn’t give a shit what the X-Men or the Brotherhood had to say about it.”

I think Dougherty is giving the actual third movie too much credit. When was comparing the Phoenix to a god touched upon in The Last Stand? Sorry. Minor rant. Dougherty continues…

“The one idea that I loved, that I really wanted to do, was that Cyclops would build the Danger Room. Cyclops felt guilty-- He felt that the X-Men were too weak. They weren’t strong enough; they weren’t fast enough, [and] that was the reason Jean died. If they were a little bit better at fighting, then she might still be alive. It was all about this guilt he had about her death and so he built the Danger Room to train them to be better. But in the end it really was about him not being able to let go of her, so that causes all the chaos and disruption in the movie. But in the end it’s about him letting her go.”

Okay, okay, so wait. Not only was Cyclops going to be front and center in the storyline, like he should’ve been, but it was going to develop him as the true leader of the X-Men? This sounds like the best idea for an X-Men movie yet… Alas, it wasn’t to be… Oh wait. It gets better:

THE END:

“Ultimately she kind of becomes that cosmic force that Phoenix is known to be, she chooses to leave Earth and become a god, or at least a higher level of intelligence, and she goes into the cosmos possibly to kick-start life somewhere else… The final scene for me would have been her telling Cyclops, or her telling the X-Men, ‘I’ll be watching.’ Essentially she becomes a god.”

I love the “I’ll be watching” part echoing the end of the second film. But unlike this story The Last Stand had no regard for what happened in the first two movies. (Like the forgotten allusion that Magneto’s machine on Liberty Island [in the first movie] triggered the Phoenix mutation. Good catch Rat-Punk!) A razor sharp Cyclops sounded so much more interesting than the pitiful, tormented man that served as little more than a cameo in The Last Stand. And actually utilizing the Phoenix as the integral plotline instead of watching her turn to marble as a third tier subplot is *INSERT CLICHÉ GASP AGAIN* far and away more desirable.

So I want to applaud director Brett Rat-Shit for his duties on The Last Stand and taking strides to do the exact opposite of Dougherty’s plan: Deliver a damn good idea. I mean seriously? This is what we could have had? Superman Returns was decent, but not worth this sacrifice. Imagine if you will, the deep fire representing the vengeful Phoenix, scorching the night sky as Cyclops and Wolverine stand battle ready on a crushed Earth below. The stakes are high. Not even Magneto and the Brotherhood are as great of a threat. Why? Because this “god” is the women these two men love. That’s brilliant shit right there!

Now think back to The Last Stand. It’s like self-mutilation isn’t it? If you’re a sadist you’ve gotta’ love this article. With rumors of Bryan Singer possibly returning to the X-Men franchise, these ideas would be beautiful for a strong return to form. I refuse to believe it’s too late to clean up Brett Rat-Fuck’s menstruating curd of bile that is the third X-Men movie. Will someone save this franchise?

MUSIC REVIEW - The Killers - Live from the Royal Albert Hall

2009-11-16T23:31:00.002-06:00

The thing about most live shows is that we all want to hear what the hits sound like live. Yes, Nine Inch Nails’ “Closer” sounds great, Linkin Park’s “One Step Closer” rocks hard, Drake’s “Closer to My Dreams” is—Hm. Pothole there. Can’t do much for lip-syncing can I? But The Killers grant us a lot of great “second tier” songs that grab your attention in a way their album counterparts don’t.

Oh, sure, “Somebody Told Me” is still as sexy as ever and “When You Where Young” provides a badass finale that I wasn’t sure The Killers could even deliver. I also want to shout out to “Jenny Was a Friend of Mine,” a personal favorite that could have easily been the night’s closer. But overlooked masterpieces like “I Can’t Stay,” “Loosing Touch” and “Bling” make you want to go back and relive their album counterparts. They all just sound great, and the acoustics of the Albert Hall compliments Brandon Flowers’ vocals beautifully.

At times these less popular sings tend to outplay the many singles that are stretched across the set list. This can be both a great and terrible thing depending on how you look at it. For me it was nice to get the wake-up call of rediscovering non-singles. It literally got me to re-love The Killers.

Most of the songs are from the recent album, Day & Age. (That’s fine by me!) Their prior album, Sam’s Town, is mostly absent from the live show, (thank God) but the better songs do strike a chord. It almost makes me want to re-listen to Sam’s Town—Almost…

I won’t say The Killers “killed it,” because that’s probably been used for every executive-handjob review of this record. I will say they’re still appropriately named though. If only “Midnight Show” were added to the set. It would’ve really matched the energy of the rest of the show. Killers fan? Get it. And get it now. Semi-Killers fan? Keep it on your list of goodies to grab. You might find there’s more to love than you thought.

***½ out of ****

Trailer of Interest - Family Guy: Something, Something Dark Side

2009-11-16T01:17:00.002-06:00

Remember Blue Harvest? The Family Guy episode that spoofed Star Wars well enough that it got too nerdy? Welcome to the sequel. Now for many Blue Harvest was something of a mixed bag. But for others, including myself, it was an enjoyable romp through the more important moments in Star Wars with Family Guy banter. And while the sequel's trailer isn't exactly hysterical, this isn't going to have the longest running time. So why spoil all the good parts? I need me more Darth Stewie.

HYPE-O-METER Scale 1-10: 7

Do You Believe in Avatar?

2009-11-13T00:02:00.011-06:00

To begin, I want to admit that this won’t be the most thorough look at Avatar. I’m not going to chronicle Avatar from its 1994 conception. But I am going to try and throw down why it’s such a big effing deal—Or not?

I haven’t updated a lot on Avatar over the last couple of years and that’s mostly because so little was known about it. Okay. And I just didn’t think it looked that interesting. Obviously that’s changed otherwise I wouldn’t be embedding the trailer on my blog.

So why am I paying attention to Avatar now? Read closely, because if I find something intriguing you should too. If not you’re a moron. Lets start with the obvious: James Cameron. This is the man that gave us the first two Terminator flicks and a sequel to Alien that was at the very least as good as its predecessor. Though he arguably sold out with Titanic, he did win an Academy Award for it. (Admittedly something that means less and less every year.) He ushered film in to the CGI era with Terminator 2 and The Abyss, and, to end this list of legendary titles, True Lies was funny as hell.

Okay, so enough of the James Cameron blow job. Why else should I be excited for this flick? Remember that small mention of Cameron jumpstarting cinema’s CGI era? Ready for the next big fad? Come now, you didn’t think CGI was the end all of visual effects did you? There will always be something else. In this case Cameron has invented his own Reality Camera System; an arrangement that uses two HD cameras in a single unit. This accomplishes greater depth perception making the 3-D component of the film more interactive with the audience. Couple that with Cameron’s promise of photo-real CGI characters that he’s been tweaking for two years and you have something to chew on.

I know what you’re thinking. We’ve seen a billion CGI characters. What makes this so different? Like King Kong and Lord of the Ring’s Gollum, motion capture is used for the alien creatures, the Na’vi. Old news, but new adjustments. A new skullcap has been constructed to capture 95% of an actor’s facial performance. But what makes all this really cool is Cameron’s visual camera technique. Most motion capture is integrated in to a shot in post-production. Here the director can see what the motion capture footage looks like next to his digital world in real time. This gives Cameron an extreme edge over all the past motion captured CG characters. Can we really say Gollum was that impressive? King Kong looked great, but there were some noticeably weak shots. And Jar-Jar? Scratch that. All of the CG characters in the recent Star Wars flicks looked like they came off Dreamwork Animation’s scrape pile. But the point is directors and visual effects artists can now perfect movements and designs of a digital character by immediately seeing what they’re like in real time. If you didn’t understand any of that, I’ll dumb it down to this: James Cameron has [apparently] developed a way to make photo realistic characters and sets through advanced camera technology and perfected motion capture.

Well this sounds all fine and dandy, in theory, but has Cameron created something truly groundbreaking? Is it what he says it is? Going on trailers alone, it’s hard to say. This is definitely something that must be seen on a large scale. I have a feeling even bluray discs will have a hard time incorporating all the detail this movie promises on the big screen. Ultimately the trailers look rather underwhelming, but watching it on a 19” computer screen on Youtube probably doesn’t do it the nearest hint of justice. I will say the shots look rather impressive and I look forward to experiencing them on the big screen.

The next drawback is Cameron’s idea of “original.” Though he claims to have imagined the whole thing from his little noggin, there has been some nasty talk of *GASP* plagiarism from our favorite Terminator creator. A science fiction novella, written by Poul Anderson, boasts a very similar storyline featuring a character embodying the form of blue, savage-like aliens.

“But wait! Cameron came up with this story in 1994! When was this sorry-ass little ‘novella’ written?” In 1957. “Oh.” Whether Avatar is a loose adaptation of that story or not, I don’t think it takes away from the hype factor. After all, this movie seems to be bent on sending cinema in to a new direction—No matter how good the story is the visual aspect is going to block it out. Or am I speaking too soon? Terminator 2 managed to tell a powerful tale of humanity’s will and value without becoming an over bloated effects orgy. It was new, fun technology, but it didn’t cloud the story. Can Cameron pull it off again?

Another concern I want to address isn’t so much about the quality of the film, but its success. With a reported budget of $230 million, plus other production investments and marketing, Avatar is said to cost an estimated $500 million. Say that out loud. $500 million. One more time. And this time enunciate. $500 million. Yeah, I wish I had $500 million to blow on a movie and make it all ba—Oh… Wait… Avatar hasn’t made a dime back yet has it? So what say you? Is Avatar going to be able to break even? Or will it just break Fox Studios’ executive balls? December 18th kids. December 18th.

Until that anticipated day I will cross my fingers. Because I want to believe in Avatar. I want to believe it will be a masterpiece. I want to believe it will look incredible. I want to believe it will be something I have a desire to make love with. I want to say, “Hey! It’s James! He’s back, he’s got this one guys.” But the internet age tends to hype things above expectation and I pray that’s not the case here.

End Note:
If you’ve finished this little rant and still think about The Last Airbender when this movie is brought up, you should seriously consider removing all sex organs. F—ktards shouldn’t reproduce.

MOVIE REVIEW - The Men Who Stare At Goats

2009-11-11T23:28:00.004-06:00

And I wanted to love this movie so much. I find myself constantly reminded that Hollywood’s political agenda is becoming more important than their quest for worthwhile art. (Sean Penn’s second Oscar anyone?) Although The Men Who Stare At Goats starts with a promising twenty minutes of humor it eventually spins out of control. What remains is a confused clump of shit that is never sure what to make light of.

Oh, I can praise the incredible cast, sure. McGregor, Clooney, the show stealing Jeff Bridges and Spacey all give praiseworthy performances. After all, these are men that could utter lines written by Mark Steven Johnson and still look great. But why waste such talent on this? They’re never inspiring. They never find conviction. They’re big, glamorous, bores!

As McGregor’s Bob Wilton follows the tree hugging, hippie taught, overacting, mentally deranged psychic warrior Lyn Cassady, (Clooney) we, the audience, get to laugh at the absurd idea of our government funding psychic forces. This should be funny in any time period. But whereas director Grant Heslov finds tragedy in disassembling the psychic military group in the 1960s, he considers its existence a crime in the new millennium.

I’m sorry? Did I miss something? The story was about a reporter following a crazy guy in the Middle East who claims he trained with Jedi. But when they find a newly reformed psychic military base, suddenly, we’re suppose to sympathize with these same, narcotic induced characters and hope they’re hippie ways will… Wait for it… Disassemble the same group updated for today. Why? Because the new group doesn’t connect with the hippie bullshit that the movie was mocking earlier? Or because this movie takes place during the Bush Administration and this is too good [easy] to pass up? Am I stepping on any toes?

Have you kept up with all of this? If not it’s okay. I expect my review to be as much of a mess as the film. Eventually, Clooney, McGregor and Bridges overthrow an entire base by spreading their beliefs of peace and love in the water supply. That’s right dogs and cats. The path to peace is apparently through LSD. Next, our “virtuous” heroes rescue captive Middle Easterners from the torture of Barney’s music on repeat. Never mind the probability that these men bombed and killed a fair amount of their own people. It’s humane and loving to let them go free! Well done. I’m so glad this flick appeals to my inner-pussy.

It amazes me how this movie went from mocking one thing and then using it to criticize another. It’s as if the film had no grasp on it’s issues what-so-ever. I’ve not seen such blatant hypocrisy since John Kerry’s political campaign. Uh oh! I brought politics in to this. How dare I? I’ll stop bringing it up if Heslov does, but maybe that’s giving him too much credit. In this case he simply threw some of cinema’s greatest actors in to a cesspool of incoherent political banter while developing them with the book of clichés. Clooney, McGregor, Spacey, Bridges—You can all part ways now.

* out of ****

Trailer of Interest - Avatar

2009-11-11T02:28:00.004-06:00

Well, holy shit. That was pretty... Pretty? Whereas the last trailer felt like a preview to another shitty Halo game with FernGully in the mix, this one shows some hint of testicles. Even still I'm not totally blown away, but it makes some good points when it starts using Cameron's resume to sell itself. (Although why The Abyss was omitted from that list is beyond me.) I still don't think the effects are as brain exploding as they were hyped to be, but the sequences look hot and, after all, this is the man that gave us a wealth of genre classics. Overall the trailer is far more exciting than the previous clip show. (Yawn.) I'm crossing my fingers here James! You better effing deliver.

HYPE-O-METER Scale 1-10: 8

P.S. This has nothing to do with The Last Airbender. To all you dumbasses, including my own, dearest friends, who reply "Oh, the live action version of the Nickelodeon show?" when this movie is brought up: You have confirmed you're an idiot. Insert hand grenade in ass and pull pin. I'd suggest you grow up, but if you're twenty years of age and thinking about The Last Airbender that ship has sailed.

ANIME CORNER - Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - DVD Part 2

2009-11-10T00:46:00.005-06:00

Oh Gundam 00, you damn tease! If you found Part 1’s cliffhanger as edgy as I did, you’ll be cursing the sky for Part 2’s.

Mobile Suit Gundam 00 is supposedly a reworking of Mobile Suit Gundam Wing. This is pretty clear in the beginning with four Earth-bound Gundams sent to eradicate war through militant means, but there’s been a lot of shit hitting the fan since Part 1’s balls out setup.

Part 2’s first story arch is highly character driven, giving the ridiculously named Allelujah Haptism his much-needed back-story. Despite his praise worthy name (Haha! Woo! Man, I kill myself.) Mr. Haptism ups his bamf-ery with an origin story that will undoubtedly affect him in future episodes. I welcome that monkey wrench for all subsequent 00 battles. (Or is it a gift in disguise?)

The next story arch focuses heavily on the fictional Middle Eastern country Azidistan. Of course Setsuna, and his crazy-as-shit combat sequences, are front and center in this arch. Here we dive deeper in to the pros and cons of the seemingly hypocritical idea behind the Gundam Meisters’ plan to eradicate war. Should the world carry on peace talks like a bunch of old bureaucratic, pansy jack-offs? Or should they intervene by blowing the hell out of every tank, plane and mobile suit loading ammo? If you're one of those hippies vomiting the pansy answer then let me rephrase the question. Which is more fun to watch?

Ultimately, the Azidistan saga give us the best of 00-- At least thusfar. Setsuna’s take on achieving peace, mixed with his personal convictions develop him in to a character that embodies every spectrum of worldly aggression: Religion, ethnicity, power, money and greed embalm a character so good I think he deserves some Azidistan Princess ass. Can we make that happen?

We also have the continuing idea that these Gundam’s embody some spiritual identity. Are they really weapons of death, or the angelic saviors of a world in need of peace? With all their limitless powers, the latter wouldn’t surprise me. Gundam Wing was often criticized for its overtly powerful Gundams and the rule that only main characters would survive against them. For the most part I don’t have a problem with highly powerful Gundams, but when Gundam Kyrios gets shot at point blank range I expect at least a dent. What’s the point of giving Exia a shield if it can block fire with its arms? We get it. They’re powerful. But it’s about time we learn why these GN drives make them so god-like.

Meanwhile, the supporting characters still don’t do a lot but advance the storyline so the Gundam’s have something to fight. Super soldier Soma Peries should be one of the more interesting sub-characters—But she’s not. Lets wrap her up and give her a funeral before we drag that out too much. Graham Aker, however, has proven to be the badass I predicted he’d be. I want to see him in a Gundam!

So Part 2 seems to flesh out more flaws in the series and ends with an unwelcomed, albeit surprising, addition of new characters. Admittedly, their arrival looks like it will shed light on many questions the series has yet to answer. I’m willing to ride out these odd additions just for that. Besides, no series is perfect. 00 is still as engaging as Part 1 and easily the best Gundam series I’ve seen in awhile.

*** out of ****

Trailer of Interest - Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

2009-11-09T03:01:00.005-06:00

It's incredible to me how this looks hokey and awesome all in one. The trailer certainly makes no apology for what it looks like and I suppose as long as it embraces its absurdity it can be pretty fun. Or it could be Disney's Chronicles of Riddick. Anyone wondering when Disney's live action adventures will strike gold again, ala Curse of the Black Pearl? Dear Disney, Mouse Ears don't need to be visible in every movie you make. Love, me.

HYPE-O-METER Scale 1-10: 4

MOVIE REVIEW - Where the Wild Things Are

2009-11-05T23:30:00.004-06:00

Yet another flick based on a short children’s book. For those fearing the same result as Jim Carrey in Grinch make-up, lower your shields. It may drag, but it never sags. Likewise, Spike Jonze may not be as great as his name, but I’ll give him credit on this one. Where the Wild Things Are managed to gently probe my heart, but I’m not exactly sure why. Frankly, that kind of bothers me.

Appropriately, Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are is a case of “did it really happen or was it just the kid’s imagination?” It doesn’t really matter either way, what is important is that you walk away knowing little boys are f---ing insane. Coming from a long history of wild imagination and impulsive energy I can certainly appreciate the love for an “igloo” made out of snow or acting like some creature out of a Godzilla movie. Young guns are wild and creative and Jonze does the audience right by establishing the fun and trials that come with being a young boy whom values indoor forts.

Eventually Max runs away from our unimaginative and boring world and finds himself with a bunch of snot nosed monsters that look like Tim Burton’s take on Sesame Street. Though it turns out that finding a home with other wild things wasn’t the answer to his problems. Yes, young padawan Max finds that maturity can be alienating and a lack of it can hurt others. So why be wild if growing up is inevitable? To all the females in the room who’ve never pretended to be Optimus Prime in their back yard: Wild. Is. F--king. Better.

But Jonze shows restraint. He knows better than to end a coming of age story without age. Though I wished Max’s journey to the land of evil Jim Henson puppets could have worked out, his visit leaves the Wild Things in turmoil. So we see the impressive visuals of these giant stuffed animals go emo and allow Max’s reign to fall on them like boulders. (Or dirt balls rather…) Max’s revelation is the pain he’s caused, which is linked back to his mother whom he reunites with in the end.

I suppose you could classify Where the Wild Things Are as a kind of Peter Pan retelling. But without a Captain Hook the story is a little long-winded. How much does it really take to make post-infancy mindsets clash? With that in mind I feel like Wild Things would have made a better short film. I guess this is why the book wasn’t too long. I don’t mean to sound under appreciative of Jonze’s love for boyhood imagination, but a movie should be more than just straight-up nostalgia. It was a valiant effort nonetheless. So I’ll give it bonus points for that.

*** out of ****

MUSIC REVIEW - Atreyu - Congregation of the Damned

2009-11-04T22:10:00.004-06:00

Fact: I’m not the world’s biggest Atreyu fan. Hell, I didn’t enjoy any of their stuff pre-Lead Sails and Paper Anchor and frankly I still don’t. Scream-o might appeal to the chaps in the crowd who don't fear strep throat, but I’ve never found much value in metalcore’s insistence on gargling lyrics. But like’em or hate’em, Atreyu is a band full of talented, loud, shredding and vengeful rock stars. It’s just a shame they haven’t whetted my appetite until their last, and pleasantly subdued album, Lead Sails and Paper Anchor.

So with their previous record being something of an expansive triumph, and perhaps their unsung masterpiece, (Yeah, I went there.) I won’t be able to help the comparisons between it and Congregation of the Damned. Sorry. And for the old school Atreyu fans, you might as well stop reading. You won’t find any praise for the appropriately named The Curse. Cry about it emo sluts.

Congregation of the Damned begins with a song reminiscent of their earlier material, but, surprisingly I wasn’t hemorrhaging while it played. Consistent screaming aside, it’s not a bad opener. After that, Atreyu returns to its Lead Sails sound with "Bleeding Is a Luxury," a song that carries the albums’ stronger lyrics, but owes Anberlin a thank you note for its opening. Or maybe Anberlin owes them a lawsuit? (“Feel Good Drag” anyone?)

Though Congregation doesn’t have any major hooks and sure-to-be-classics like Lead Sail’s “Doomsday” and “When Two Are One,” it offers some strong tunes that beg for some attention. “Gallows,” “Storm to Pass” and “Insatiable” make a passing effort for car ride scream-alongs. Meanwhile, “Coffin Nails” steals the baton of badassery from the would-be, should-be, wasn’t-to-be awesome title track.

The album's biggest failure is Atreyu’s struggle at affectionate songwriting. The attempt at an emotional finale, “Wait for You,” almost makes me want them to go all the way back to their metalcore roots. The last thing I want to hear before I die is another love song by Atreyu. Stick to lyrics reaming off the effects of Armageddon guys.

If you’re an Atreyu fan, new or old, give Congregation a world. It’ll be a hit or miss with most fans. If you’ve never heard a song by Atreyu before, move along. There’s nothing to see, hear or have sex with here. It’s fun enough to avoid being damned, but we can’t please everyone, can we? Lead Sails PwNz0Rz it. Sorry. Couldn’t help Atreyu-izing myself for a moment.

** out of ****

ANIME CORNER - Mobile Suit Gundam 00 - DVD Part 1

2009-11-04T00:10:00.005-06:00

When you’re watching a Gundam series you better buck up for some heavy-handed, anti-war sing-along. It’s inevitable. Whenever a Gundam rears its samurai inspired head it tends to glare at current events in a battle for relevance. Mobile Suit Gundam 00, tends to be the heavier hitting of these shows. It sports the most obvious post-9/11 storyline yet, but it isn’t so downbeat to not remind us how cool giant robots are.

Bringing ethnicity, religion and moral obligations in to the forefront, 00 manages to drench its audience in enough back-story to send even your grandma to wikipedia. Thankfully if you just sit back and watch the show everything will be revealed. What’s the fictional country they keep mentioning you ask? Wait ten minutes and the three, sexy female characters will reveal all! (And my God, Feldt has enormous mammary glands for a thirteen year old! Apparently every girl in 2307 A.D. will be 38C by age ten.)

In all seriousness though, Gundam 00 has a fantastic hook. The series blasts off immediately with robot-kicking action and saves the explanation for episode two. But nothing is spoon-fed immediately. Every character is harboring some deep secret that leaves the audience wanting more. It’s like Lost, but it won’t take thirty seasons just to know what a character’s tattoo means.

The instant grab is, of course, main character Setsuna F. Seiei; a name so suave you want to whisper it during sex. This would-be Heero Yuy clone actually has more depth to him than a constant bid for suicide. His consistent distaste for God, brought on by his previous occupation as a brainwashed child soldier, is clashed with the angelic salvation of a Gundam. Years later he finds himself piloting a Gundam of his own and embodies the infatuation every boy has with these machines. It’s nice to know there’s finally a series where the kid is as obsessed with giant robots as we are.

The rest of the characters, Lockon Stratos, Allelujah Haptism and Tieria Erde, have equally interesting mysteries obscuring their past. Unfortunately very little is revealed in the first nine episodes. Instead we’re introduced to a plethora of supporting players that are good for the story, but not very interesting characters. (Except for Graham Aker. I can see him spinning into the realm of baddassery later on.) Lockon tends to be another favorite of mine. It’s nice to have a Gundam pilot whose age doesn’t begin with the number one. Meanwhile Tiera is a little too flamboyant for my tastes. I’ll wait until I know his backstory, but as of right now the guy is a dick. I mean pink shirts? Really?

But what about the Gundams, gun-dammit? Are they worth snapping together for your model kit collection? They are, in fact, sleek and cool, with some design aspects I’ve never seen before. The animation is also incredible—Guaranteed to make any mecha-phile explode their pants. They’re also pretty much invulnerable. I mean come on; you didn’t expect them to take on the world without getting God’s blessing of dent proof armor no matter what hits them. At least the GN-drive is a worthy and mysterious device for their superiority over enemy mobile suits—For now anyway. That could change when we know more about it.

When Part I ended with an aggravating and surprisingly edgy cliffhanger, I declared Gundam 00 as a positively epic and thoughtful addition to the Gundam series. And why the hell shouldn’t I? Every politically motivated episode is accented with some explosive surprise whether it comes from the characters’ mouths or the end of a beam rifle. U.C. Gundam fans will revile it, but if you’re a little more open minded about the Gundam series you might find it’ll rock your socks.

***½ out of ****

MOVIE REVIEW - Zombieland

2009-11-03T02:02:00.004-06:00

Walking out of Zombieland was like receiving a Christmas gift you didn’t ask for, but enjoy anyway. “Why didn’t this movie fail?” Has been a constant question I’ve asked myself. After all, Zombieland is just a road trip movie that looks like it was written for Michael Cera in a genre so putrid that Shawn of the Dead is its greatest advocate. But I digress. Reason? If I didn’t respect Woody Harrelson beforehand, I do now.

In Zombieland Jesse Eisenberg puts on his best “I am Michael Cera” moves, a tactic I should criticize him for until the end of time. But I have to admit, I enjoyed his take on a nutless, teen recluse a lot more than Juno’s love interest. Speaking of love interests, if you are a male with any genitalia you should write a letter to Emma Stone asking her to look exactly as she does in this movie for all her future projects. In a movie with Woody Harrelson shooting zombies on a roller coaster I won’t ask for Oscar winning performances, but if a female lead is a must, Stone’s bad girl look is required. All aboard for Wichita.

Wichi-who? Wichita. That’s right. Every character calls themselves by their home town or destination-- A fittingly amusing move for characters that become very close. While Eisenberg’s Columbus and Wichita are fitting names in an oddly plain way, Harrelson steals the name Tallahassee. Yep, he’s as bombastic as his title suggests—A blistering mobile for lines like “Nut up or shut up!” and my new favorite derogatory: “Spitf--k.”

Even though the character chemistry is strong and the laughs run deeper than the many spoilers in the previews, the movie doesn’t really get good until the team reaches Bill Murray’s mansion. (You heard me.) From there the movie spirals into the absurdity you expect of a zombie comedy. Harrelson’s badass shows a soft side, Stone’s playgirl softens to our favorite nerd and Eisenberg learns to do something Cera never has: “Nut up.”

In a predictable turn of events that leads Columbus and Tallahassee on a rescue mission in a theme park, Zombieland delivers the goods in guns, guts and glory. Thank God this movie was rated R. I can’t imagine it skeeting over its 98% chance of failure otherwise. I truly applaud Zombieland for what it has overcome. Despite it’s revealing trailers and exhausted plot devices the film soars as one of the most entertaining flicks this year. Furthermore, I want more adventures with these characters. Bad idea? Maybe, but imagine what Zombieland would be like with some fresh ideas. To director Ruben Fleischer, I want more. Time to nut up and get crackin’ on that sequel.

*** out of ****

"Lost" Not All Will Be Answered - Movie Continuation?

2009-09-12T01:42:00.002-05:00

Now I may just be blowing up a lot of smoke-- In fact, I know I'm blowing up a lot of smoke. This isn't something to blow out of proportion, but I can see it on the horizon.

This news begins with "Lost" producer Carlton Cuse's words about the series finale:

"Sometimes not knowing the whole story is more interesting and more fulfilling than knowing."

Cuse has stated we shouldn't expect every question answered by the series end. And while there is certainly some weight to Cuse's explanation of not knowing the whole story, (For example, I think we'd all be a lot happier if we didn't get the rather contrived Star Wars prequels-- What we discovered in the original trilogy was enough.)his explanation also feels like an excuse of some poor writing.

I suppose I'm finally accepting the fact that the writers had no idea where some of these plot lines were going and have no logical explanation for them. While it doesn't make me like the show any less, it does bring a lot of disappointment. The idea of only building up anticipation with no payoff was a very poor way to gain audiences and keep them tuned in.

But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. The final season has yet to air and it may turn out that the smaller questions aren't of much worth anyway. So what does this have to do with film and blowing up smoke?

Cuse also noted that season six is the end of the current Lost series as we know it, but somewhere down the line it may be utilized elsewhere. Reality check anyone? "Lost" is an enormous franchise, and very successful to boot. Although the final season will end the story of the characters we all know and love, why do I have a feeling "The Eyeland" could be visited again? And if it is, what form of media would it be? Comic book? TV spin-off? A movie? Ah! A movie! The idea of a "Lost" movie has been brought up numerous times, but, of course, nothing has come from it. Could Disney milk the franchise in to a big screen film? It certainly has that potential...

But, as of right now, I hope its left alone. And again, I'm just speculating. But it is interesting that there's been so many hints of a future beyond the series and so few of us thought about it. Disappointing in some ways, but... Well... Lets see how it all ends and then decide if a follow-up could be decent. No?

"Trek" Cover and Releases

2009-09-11T00:41:00.006-05:00

Well it looks like the streak of bad cover art continues with all sorts of studios. And, per usual, the single disc DVD art looks far better than the two-disc DVD/Bluray art.

The one thing I do like about the bluray art is that it kind of fits in with the individual cases of the recent six-disc bluray box set. So for those who like the character's faces plastered on the front of each film-- I guess this isn't too terrible.

Otherwise, I recommend getting the Best Buy exclusive set with the Starfleet badges and domestic poster cover art.

Single Disc DVD:

3 Disc Bluray (same as 2 Disc DVD):

3 Disc Bluray Best Buy Edition:

Good thing I know the movie rocks. If I were to judge it by only the cover I probably wouldn't pick it up.

October 27th.

Terminator Salvation Has a (Late) Release Date

2009-09-11T00:28:00.002-05:00

As confirmed before, there will be a director's cut exclusive to bluray, but don't get to excited. The cut is only three minutes longer, hardly enough to really change the bulk of the movie.

And even though this was one of the first films of the summer, it will be one of the last released this fall. December 1st for those who were fans of the film.

"Chronicling" The Sarah Connor Chronicles: Ode to the Fans

2009-09-03T00:18:00.007-05:00

This is a very special post—Aside of my reviews I don’t often take a lot of time to paraphrase my thoughts. (Ala, the two posts beneath this one.) Furthermore, I rarely post anything about television series. And, once again, it has to do with a cancelled show.

I’m fully aware my vain attempt to save “The Dead Zone,” was, at best, half-assed because of a rather unorganized and undedicated fan base. Furthermore, it was clear “The Dead Zone” had run its course and should’ve stopped after its third season.

This series, however, is a very different matter. “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” (TSCC) was cancelled far too early. Although some may consider the jaw-dropping, beautiful ending as the prelude for the 1984 film, “The Terminator,” others refuse to accept that as the finale. Because of this attitude, the show has now become a literal symbol of its powerful message of hope.

Fans, far and wide, beyond oceans and through computers, have band together to strive for a continuation of one television’s greatest and most ambitious series. Putting the series’ “no fate” message to the test, the TSCC fan base has grown in to a massive force that has guaranteed being noticed. So, what has taken place? How are they so strong?

To summarize: $3,500 was raised to cart a mobile billboard around Warner Brothers-ville and see if they get a clue. The TSCC-mobile will ride to its mission on September 22nd the day Season 2 comes to DVD/Blu Ray. Another $2,530 was raised to deliver an ad before movies in select theaters. Now I keep saying “raised.” Who raised it? Remarkably, the fans. Fans have been raising money, ordering custom stickers, USB drives that look like a terminator CPU, writing letters…etc… to make it all happen. It really makes me wonder, if the TSCC fan base is this strong, how did the show get cancelled? How accurate were those ratings? Have you been paying attention Fox?

So where is this going? Recently, rumors have surfaced about a possible direct-to-DVD movie. Thomas Dekker, who played John Connor better than any actor before or after him (as much as I love Bale), recently commented on the possibility of a direct-to-DVD flick. This is what I was banking on/hoping for from the beginning. I understand some fans are still hooked on grabbing a season 3 instead of a direct-to-DVD movie, but even if it is the only thing we get would that not still be a success? Can’t we get closure? Now, I am, by no means, saying fans should simply settle for something they don’t want. I respect the TSCC fanbase too much for that and am ever so proud to be a part of such a vastly armored community. But, thinking realistically, I hope more and more fans pursue the idea of a DVD film and fuel more fire behind the rumors to get some Warner Brothers execs’ heads turned. Who knows where it could lead?

Now, for the non-believers: Can it work? I'll make this answer simple. If Star Trek, Firefly, Family Guy, Futurama, Jericho, Arrested Development (movie pending) and Sliders (for the most part) have taught me anything, it's that fan outcry can be quite powerful. Now factor in the absurdly loud demand for TSCC. Case closed.

That said I hope some of the other, few readers I have here will take this series and its possible resurrection to heart. I merely mean this to be a love letter to the “big push” for more TSCC, which starts tomorrow, Sept. 3rd. (See www.savethescc.com for more details.)

“The Sarah Connor Chronicles” was, undoubtedly, one of the most beautiful series I’ve seen come to life. Initially turning my nose up at the show was very premature of me and I was very happy to eat my words and be rewarded with, arguably, the strongest piece in the Terminator franchise. To any and all, thank you for reading. To the fine staff at savethescc.com, the best of luck and I offer my services if any are needed. (Please get in touch.) To the fans of TSCC, keep it up. Keep up the fight, the hope and fun. Truly this series has brought a lot of people together and, working externally, it may have achieved more meaning.

Season 2 of “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” is released September 22nd. Make sure you grab a copy.

And remember. “There is no fate but what we make for ourselves.” This is GMAN. Over and out.

TRAILER - Inception

2009-09-02T19:56:00.003-05:00

A science fiction epic which "takes place in the architecture of the mind." Says director Christopher Nolan. Watching the trailer I'm wondering how literal we should take this comment.

I know I'm a little late with this trailer, but I love it so much I had to post it. Why? Lets just say I enjoy whatever teasing Christopher Nolan gives me. (If anyone wants to take that as a sexual connotation you're entitled.)

Even with this trailer it's hard to say what "Inception" is really about. But with the director of "The Dark Knight" composing a cast with Leonardo DiCaprio, Ken Watanabe, Ellen Paige, Michael Cane, Tom Hardy and Tom Berenger, the only thing you should care about is how soon you can get your ticket.

Did I mention Hans Zimmer's doing the music? And scene:

Next summer.

TRAILER - Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day

2009-09-02T19:44:00.005-05:00

'Bout time. While the trailer isn't exactly mind blowing it doesn't worry me enough for the film as a whole. The first movie was a love-it-or-hate-it flick with a large fan following that would rather stick their middle fingers up to naysayers than indulge them; it seems fair that the second should feel the same.

I also want to exhaust how great it is to see Sean Patrick Flanery after USA debunked "The Dead Zone." (He played Greg Stillson in the series.) The original cast looks great and the trailer ensures this will be a lot of fun.

So how soon will "Boondock Saints II: All Saints Day" arrive? Shockingly, October 30th! No, of this year, not 2010. I was expecting a release date of early next year at the soonest. Not bad.

The trailer is a red band trailer, so be cautious, this isn't so work/soccer mom friendly.

Oct. 30th.

Disney Owns Marvel: Maybe Not a Bad Thing?

2009-08-31T18:59:00.004-05:00

When I heard today that Disney had bought Marvel Comics for a whopping $4 Billion I wasn't exactly thrilled. Once again, I was provided with evidence that Disney will end up owning everything. At the same time I was a little dismayed by all the negativity. I logged on to twitter, facebook and followed comments made on various entertainment news sites-- The reaction was bombastic. Is it really that bad?

Actually, probably as a result of being fed up with the negative reactions, I'm beginning to think this could be a good thing.

First of all, we won't be seeing the effects of Disney's Marvel for awhile. Paramount still has the rights to distribute "Iron Man 2," and the "Thor," and "Captain America" movies. "The Avengers" is still under Paramount's wing as well, but that, and the other two films, are a long way off. Disney has said they will keep their distance from the current productions, trusting the current crew. But once these movies have been distributed, Disney will be the sole owner of everything future Marvel.

Not a terrible thing considering Marvel has unofficially been under financial stress. (I detail my theory on that here.) Is it really that bad if Disney steps in to help pay the hard working cast and crew? Besides, the more dollar signs, the more likely we'll continue to see A-list filmmakers join the Marvel community.

And then, the big one: Will Pixar make a Marvel oriented movie? Disney CEO Bob Iger has remarked on the idea:

"Pixar boss John Lasseter talked to the Marvel guys about this and they all got excited about it. We think there’s ultimately some exciting product that [could] come of that."

A Pixar Marvel movie? Those are some exciting prospects! I know the world is afraid of what Disney may do to the Marvel world, but ultimately, I doubt they'll do much to get in the way creatively. I'm sure it'll be the same old Marvel, just with a Disney logo attached to it.

Pirates of the Caribbean and the Vague Plot Synopsis

2009-08-31T18:40:00.004-05:00

Although some might think this post needed to be added to my "Bad Ideas" post, I, for the most part, enjoyed the "Pirates" movies. The second film is hard to sit through, admittedly, and although the third had flaws I enjoyed it a lot more. They're fun, well acted fantasy films. I could say my expectations were higher, but I'd be lying.

Anyway, even though I don't think we're in any need of a third sequel, we are getting just that! The plot of "Pirates 4" will center around Jack Sparrow and crew finding the fountain of youth. In a addition, they will be up against a Captain Nemo-esque villain armed with the latest technology for the time. (i.e. There's no plausible way anyone could make whatever we'll see in that time period. So begin swallowing that bit of information now.)

While the rumored "steam-punk" addition to this movie will no doubt be interesting, I'm wondering how it will look in contrast to the rather over-the-top fantasy elements these movies have thrived on. Plus I keep seeing flashes of the giant, steam powered mecha-spider from "The Wild, Wild West." That's right. I just dug up a movie that horrible from my memory banks. Are we still okay with this Captain Nemo-like character's technology?

Still no word if Bloom or Knightley will return. It looks unlikely though. "Pirates 4" is most likely to begin shooting next year.

Three Bad Ideas, Three Bad Sequels

2009-08-31T17:26:00.007-05:00

While the title to this post may seem rather condemning I have reason to believe I'm not jumping the gun. Hollywood's shrewd hard-on for milking franchises has reached new heights in the last few years, so it's no surprise these announcements feel like the coming of a new paycheck. Lets plow through this from bad to worse:

Bad Idea #3 - Bad Boys 3

This is probably the least of my concern. I never cared for the first two and don't think there's really anything to ruin. Columbia Pictures has hired Peter Craig to write a screenplay in the hope Will Smith, Martin Lawrence and director Michael Bay will return to the franchise.

The hurdle? Money. Will Smith and Michael Bay are two very, very expensive players in the superstar world right now. Furthermore, Michael Bay is lost in Transformer-land and wants to do another movie before Transformers 3. My guess is Bay won't be returning, but my hope is that this will fall through altogether.

Bad Idea #2 - Halloween 3D

After Rob Zombie molested what's barely remaining of the Halloween franchise with his psuedo-psychological take on the killer, Dimension decided they would like to squeeze another "golden egg" out of the shriveled up prune of a goose. I've stated my displeasure behind the current 3D fad before and this movie sounds like another way to cannibalize both the franchise and film-going as a whole. Raise your hand if you really, really want to pay $10+ to see Mike Myers slash up people in 3D. Is it really worth it?

The good news is Rob Zombie will not be returning. The bad news is... Well, damn, I just announced the bad news.

Bad Idea #1 - Rambo 5

Once upon a time, I thought the Rambo franchise was pretty good. Sure the third movie was terrible, but the first two were fun and exciting. They were adventurous and I believed Rambo really was the haunted and battle worn character he was portrayed to be. But with Stallone's fourth film I've lost hope in a full return to form. Rambo wasn't so much a character as he was an excuse for violent exploitation. The fact another movie is greenlit based on the fourth film is terrifying to me. Was it not Stallone who stated the latest, and arguably worst, of the Rambo films would be the Final Blood?

Regardless, a fifth Rambo is happening. In the next flick, our favorite steroid toting actor will take on drug traffickers on the United States/Mexican border. Production starts next Spring. Can good ole' Sly return the Rambo we all loved? I doubt it. I really want to think it's possible, but I doubt it.

Dollar signs have never been as clear as they are today.

What Did You Think of "District 9?"

2009-08-31T17:03:00.002-05:00

With a whopping four votes I'm confident both my blog and its polls will reach Entertainment Weekly popularity in no time. That said, at least three people in the world felt "District 9" was 'good' and one person thought it was 'average.' What ever should we do with that one person who is alone in this large majority?

The Oscar nominees are:

Masterpiece - 0 Votes (0%)

Good - 3 Votes (75%)

Average - 1 Vote (25%)

Meh - 0 Votes (0%)

Horrible - 0 Votes (0%)

TRAILER - The Men Who Stare At Goats

2009-08-28T01:21:00.002-05:00

[sarcasm]Well it's about time something outlandish and absurd hit theaters this year.[/sarcasm] Based on (what I can barely believe) a true story, "The Men Who Stare At Goats" follows a reporter (Ewan McGregor) who tries to track a story about a military unit trained to utilize special powers. You know, seeing the future, walking through walls, telekinesis-- Real X-Men stuff. Anyway he stumbles upon the "best" of the unit (George Clooney) and well... Watch the trailer.

The all-star cast also includes Kevin Spacey and Jeff Bridges. Looks funny, but then it could have just given away all the best moments. November 6th will tell us soon enough.

TRAILER - Zombieland (International Version)

2009-08-27T02:00:00.002-05:00

Finally. A zombie flick that doesn't bother trying to be good. We may have a winner!

Although I think I enjoyed the domestic trailer more, this still has the spark about it that will put my ass in the seat to see it.

Welcome to Zombieland October 9th!

REVIEW - "Inglourious Basterds" (2009)

2009-08-26T23:40:00.005-05:00

Over the past week I’ve seen some moviegoers declare “District 9” as “The Dark Knight” of this summer. I shrugged, not exactly agreeing with such sentiment, but certainly not giving the comment much credit. And for good reason. It’s undeserved. While I doubt a summer blockbuster will ever reach the bar set by “The Dark Knight” in the next twenty years, I suppose we can still clamor about the closest cases and correlate the absurd comment to films on a yearly basis. And if the title, “This Year’s Dark Knight” is to go to any movie, it is “Inglourious Basterds.”

Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) leads a Jewish squad in to Nazi France to… “Do one thing and one thing only.” Kill Nazis. When they learn a Nazi film’s premiere will include Hitler himself they decide to take out the entire audience during the film. While their plans face casualties, particularly under the ruthless Col. Landa, they are also unaware of a Jewish girl’s plot to burn down her theater—Aiding the Basterds in their agenda.

So why on Earth would I declare this movie as “This Year’s Dark Knight?” Well, anyone who is a fan of Tarantino should be able to figure that out. Like the “The Dark Knight,” though less subtly, “Inglourious Basterds” harkens back to great 1970s and 1980s cinema. (Arguably two of the best decades of film.) Granted, all of Tarantino’s movies have a 70s aesthetic to them, but like the latest Bat-venture it seamlessly fuses raw, hard characters with painstakingly difficult moral dilemmas that give violence a newfound substance. The big difference is, “Basterds’” elements are all satirical. What? You thought Tarantino was going to create cookie-cutter, heartfelt war flick we’ve seen countless times before? I. Think. Not.

It is without regret or remorse that I laughed my throat sore as soon as Pitt’s Aldo Raine trampled the screen. Scenes of his merciless brutality and colorful vocabulary only seemed to excite the audience and I. But why was this character so interesting? Beyond his one-track attitude toward Nazis, he seemed rather one-dimensional. It wasn’t until his conversation with a Nazi prisoner that I realized what he was. When the officer declines to give Raine information, after the threat of a brutal beating from “The Bear Jew,” (Eli Roth) Raine replies, “Actually, Werner, we're all tickled to hear you say that. Quite frankly, watching Donny [The Bear Jew] beat Nazi's to death is the closest we ever get to going to the movies.” Suddenly Tarantino’s love for film skyrockets from the screen to my body. He’s fully aware what makes the audience tick, what they enjoy and how they enjoy it. But he is also aware of the desensitization that movies, even his own films, have been criticized for. Satire has never been brighter, ballsier and funnier as this scene runs to a violent finish.

As we hop from one lengthy scene to another, there’s something marvelous to be said about the writing for each character. Though many will argue the movie needed a sharper axe in the editing room, there truly isn’t anything I would have changed. For example, undercover British soldier Lt. Archie Hicox’s rendezvous with a German informant is interrupted by a Nazi soldier’s curiosity and need for company. The awkward scene is brought to life with long-winded shots of drinking, gaming and snooty comradery. What feels like a pointless exercise in how to shoot non-mobile characters with dialogue feels more like a long joke waiting for a punch line. Though the scene ends with most of the characters’ conversation left irrelevant, there’s something gratifying about sitting through it. It’s Tarantino’s style to outwit the audience’s emotions and bring their misguidance tumbling down on their heads. Here he succeeds like never before, ending everything with jaw dropping abruptness.

Because of the massive amount of attention given to even the tiniest characters, it’s hard not to chew up the screen if you’re in front of the camera. Every performance, one after another, is absolutely top notch. As if arming themselves for a Shakespearean tragedy, the cast of “Inglourious Basterds” is wrought with the most believable amount of tension to keep audiences gripped to the screen. While Pitt’s Aldo Raine ranks among his better performances, Christoph Waltz nearly steals the show with his portrayal of Col. Hans Landa. Smart, calculating and treacherous—It’s so much more interesting to give us a Nazi we can hate more than Hitler, instead of lazily allowing historical knowledge to fuel our feelings. Waltz may be up for a supporting actor nod as he is, by far, a stand out player in “Basterds.”

A rather underrated player is the gorgeous Mélanie Laurent’s revenge filled Shosanna Dreyfus. A character I ended up loving more than I thought, Laurent transformers herself from a petty Jewish survivor, to a full-fledged nightmare to the Nazi party. Although she is never aware of the Basterds, her presence in the film is a giant factor to how everything winds up by the end of the film.

Before the credits hit the screen, the last line audiences will hear is, “I think this just might be my masterpiece.” With that, I can only reply, “I think it just might be, Mr. Tarantino.” So lets strip away “This Year’s Dark Knight” nonsense, and even a line like “Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction.” By the end of the film I was convinced: This is Tarantino’s best. Ouch. Now that is bold isn’t it?

**** out of ****

Terminator Salvation Director's Cut Rated R?

2009-08-26T23:20:00.003-05:00

I suppose this isn't too surprising, but what few flies on the wall that know anything about "Salvation's" home video release are buzzing loudly: Supposedly the DVD/Bluray release of the fourth Terminator film will include slightly more violent footage and Moon Bloodgood's nudity. This is all speculation because, according to McG, very little was cut from the movie. (Other than Moon Bloodgood nude.) So why a director's cut? Well...

While I greatly enjoyed "Salvation," it's also a very flawed movie and it didn't exactly blow up at the box office. I'm not sure how much a risque shot and rise in brutality will help the film, but a "director's cut is always a 'sure fire' strategy to help sales...err...right?

In the meantime, I'm wondering if it's ever coming out on home video. No one seems to know an exact release date, other than "mid-November." This is subject to change, but I wonder if Warner Brothers' is changing up their marketing strategy for the film's video release beyond a simple "director's cut." If so it might be why we have release dates for "Star Trek" and the later released "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" but no "Salvation."

I look forward to it either way. Maybe more Arnold in the director's cut? Please?

TRAILER - Avatar

2009-08-23T03:06:00.002-05:00

For years we've waited. James Cameron claimed he wanted to put this "epic" project on the back burner until technology had become advanced enough to make it work. Fans, geeks and Cameron supporters have bit their nails eagerly to see the touted revolutionary special effects-- And finally. We get a teaser trailer.

Now, I saw this trailer several days ago, but I wanted to see it on the big screen before I put it on here and blogged about it. Frankly, even after seeing it on one of my city's larger screens, I don't get it. Sure it looks, fun, colorful and enjoyable. I'm glad Cameron is back and I hope he doesn't over a decade to make his next movie. But as far as "Avatar" goes... What's the big deal? The effects don't look any more revolutionary than "District 9's" aliens and the rest looks reminiscent, if not identical to effects extravaganzas of recent: "The Matrix Revolutions," "Harry Potter" and "Transformers," all come to mind as comparable and, dare I say, influential.

Perhaps I'm jumping the gun. It is, after all, a teaser trailer and James Cameron certianly wouldn't spill all the goods in a teaser... Right? Right...?

December 18.

TRAILER - The Fourth Kind

2009-08-23T02:59:00.003-05:00

What works: "The Fourth Kind" looks like its that very special kind of horror. There's no man chasing down underdeveloped teenage whores. There's not a psycho behind a current getting off to all the the inane "jigsaw" traps his victims fall in. All the horror is staged within the minds of the characters. Because of this, the trailer only shows the horrific reactions to these memories and why what you don't see is far scarier than what you do see.

What doesn't work: Though the trailer claims to use achieved footage from a real life investigation I've found next to zilch on the subject-- That doesn't mean the footage isn't real, but I'm wondering if this "based on true accounts" stuff is nothing more than a marketing ploy. Or perhaps the lack of information is simply part of the horror? You decide. For me, "The Fourth Kind" trailer is far scarier than any feature I've seen in the last half decade.

Theaters, March 2010.

REVIEW - "District 9" (2009)

2009-08-17T22:36:00.003-05:00

Just when I thought this weak summer had nothing more to offer. Of course, when I say “more,” what I mean is something with substance and a show of talent. “District 9,” at the very minimum, is an illustration of new talent oozing with relevance. The masses are correct: Neill Blomkamp is a name to watch for. If “District 9” is any indication, Blomkamp’s future looks very promising indeed.

The film opens with a brief history about the aliens reaching Earth. Labeled as workers with missing leadership, the aliens are “given” a home on Earth outside Johannesburg, South Africa. After twenty-years in their slum home of District 9, MMU, the aliens’ governing body on Earth, decides to relocate them further away from the city. During the process a strange alien container infects relocation operative Wikus van der Merwe; the event spirals him in to the greatest fears of his life and the revelation of the aliens’ salvation.

“District 9” sets itself up as a docudrama, but continues with linear storytelling filling the gaps between the camcorder and security footage. What sounds like a pathetic attempt at innovation actually joins the two styles seamlessly. For those in fear of keeping up with jarring camera instability, fear not. The documentary style is steadier than most Michael Bay films and while the cinematography doesn’t have the cleverness of “Cloverfield’s” handheld shots it frames everything believably for every any given situation. (Security recordings, handheld interviews, P.O.V. shots.) Unfortunately Blomkamp’s photography slowly seeps in to fast summer action shooting, sporting all the cliché framing and filters we’ve become accustomed to when watching a soldier walk in slow motion.

But enough with my film-student wanking of Blomkamp’s intriguing style. Is the movie any good outside a photography major’s knowledge? “District 9” is, without a doubt, everything that makes up good science fiction: Originality, spectacle, well-developed characters and a large mirror reflecting a critique on the human condition. Like a long episode of “The Twilight Zone,” “District 9” provokes wonder and promotes thought.

Wikus, who begins as the most despicable offenders of human rights, (even though these creatures aren’t exactly human) discovers the humanity in these aliens when he’s forced to hide among them. Though his infection curiously reeks of Jeff Goldblum in “The Fly,” it’s (thankfully) used as an outlet to learn more about the visitors. Befriending a rather lovable alien, Christopher, Wikus’s selfish needs grow in to a compassion that inspires the type of aggression needed to fight a world littered with prejudice and poverty.

Set in South America, a country that triggers all the images “District 9” produces, it’s interesting to feel concern for these otherworldly creatures in their cramped slums. The footage of aliens facing street executions and torture is a vague reminder of events that happen throughout that particular continent. As Wikus begins to feel for these creatures there’s a bitterness left with me. Is the film’s reality so powerful because there’s only a handful of Wikus in the audience? If it at all? I feel as if the irony behind caring for these fictional creatures was purposefully left by Blomkamp to be pondered over. If this idea goes over some people’s heads then at least the subtext of valuing all individuals is left loud and clear.

After struggling with the images and characters that grace the film’s stronger messages, the epic ends with what we expect in modern science fiction: A climatic blowout of visuals and explosions. While the CGI was already impressive throughout, topping the rather poorly aged renders of Gollum and Jar-Jar Binks, the finale flexes all the right muscles to keep the thrills sharp and the multiplexes’ arm rests in business. Although it could use a little editing, “District 9” delivers in ways very few summer flicks did this year. (If any.)

It’s not that “District 9” is a perfect movie or even the greatest science fiction story ever. It’s the fact it clings to what little originality is left in Hollywood and pushes it to the forefront of mainstream ideas. Connecting with age-old human issues and using it to create a very engrossing world, “District 9” is haunting and stimulating. But if you really want a one word sum-up of "District 9," here it goes: "Cool!" Blomkamp has some interesting potential. I look forward to his future endeavors.

*** out of ****

Legendary Pictures to Produce New Godzilla?

2009-08-16T03:25:00.004-05:00

And let the rumors begin. A little fly on the wall has released news that Legendary Pictures (the company partially responsible for the little movie known as "The Dark Knight") is in negotiations to produce a brand new Godzilla film. Is this true?

When an insider asked Toho if this report had any legitimacy to it, they simply responded, "No comment." And added, "We're currently shopping around..." It sounds like Toho would have denied this outright if it weren't true. They're good at doing that. Even if it's true, however, this project is still a long way off as negotiations will no doubt take awhile if Toho is wanting to avoid another disaster like the 1998 movie.

There's also a fly on the wall spitting something about Weta hoping to do the effects work for Godzilla. For those keeping tabs on visual effects, that's the company that ditched out "The Lord of the Rings" beasts. But lets ignore that rumor based on the fact we don't even know if this movie is being made yet.

So why should I, a lifelong Godzilla fan, be excited about this? Am I not afraid another mistake like the 1998 debacle will be born? A few things to divert that fear: First, we've reached a point in film making where studios, crew members...etc... are actually paying attention to what fans want and thus, to avoid scrutiny, stay close to the source material. Why would it be much different for this new Godzilla, especially after the source-straying movie from 1998 bombed with both critics and fans?

The next fear stopper is simply the charm that some franchises have today. "Star Trek," "Iron Man," and yes, even that "Transformers" seem to have a spark audiences really take too and embrace. Whether they should or not is a different discussion altogether. But I can see a Godzilla movie, if done right, that can grab that same attention from audiences and receive enough love to continue as a franchise.

And finally, it's been nearly five years since the last Godzilla outing "Godzilla: Final Wars." Being use to the franchise's long list of movies, it feels uncomfortable to not add more titles on a regular basis. Similar to the James Bond franchise, you just can't go too long with out adding another Godzilla title. In short, I hope this Legendary Pictures deal moves forward and I hope I, and my fellow G-Fans, receive the American Godzilla movie we dreamt of over a decade ago.

Poll - Movie You're Looking Forward to the Most Next Year

2009-08-16T03:21:00.003-05:00

Surprised as I am, I'm also a little delighted. I would have guessed "Iron Man 2" had this poll in the bag by a long shot, but I suppose with the excitement surrounding the recent Harry Potter flick this makes sense. On the other hand... It's not like a fat amount of people vote on these sorry things. And the poll results are:

Iron Man 2 - 1 Vote (16%)

Alice in Wonderland - 0 Votes (0%)

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt. 1 - 4 Votes (65%)

Tron Legacy - 1 Vote (16%)

Boondock Saints 2 - 0 Votes (0%)

Toy Story 3 - 0 Votes (0%)

Other - 0 Votes (0%)

Harry Potter and the Extended Editions

2009-08-16T03:08:00.003-05:00

Don't jump up and down too high. While there will in fact be extended editions of the Harry Potter films released soon (presumably on DVD, but a special theatrical release isn't out of the question) the fact is there really aren't that many deleted scenes to insert per movie.

Although I would love to see a "Lord of the Rings Extended Edition" length Harry Potter series, it's not exactly going to be that big of a cut. Simply a handful of scenes, or extended scenes, will likely be littered throughout the series and passed off as longer versions.

So, I ask the Potter fans, is it worth the extra dough? The answer depends on what type of fan you are I suppose. The "extended" cut I'm most interested in is the fifth film, (my favorite entry) although I feel heavy additions to the sixth film could enhance it greatly. Perhaps there's more to these extended cuts than we think? Wait and see.

Can "Wolverine 2" Save the X-Men?

2009-08-16T02:47:00.003-05:00

I'm not sure why I keep holding out hope for the X-Men franchise. If Bryan Singer's approachable vision of people with extraordinary gifts wasn't destroyed in "X-Men: The Last Stand," then it was finished off in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." But yet, Fox is throwing us a glimmer of hope! Oh what could it be? Tom Rothman's resignation? Sorry. That's just false hope.

Oscar winning scribe Christopher McQuarrie is selected to adapt the Japanese saga of Wolverine's life. McQuarrie was an uncredited writer of the first "X-Men" which was mostly the work of David Hayter. So the good news is he knows how to write the characters properly.

But what oh what can become of a script, or film, when Tom Rothman is looking over the staff's shoulder? The first "Wolverine" looked promising, but left nothing notable outside its pretty looking trailer. Besides, we've seen Oscar caliber talent fail at franchise material before. (I'm looking at you John Logan. "Gladiator" was great, but "Star Trek: Nemesis" needed some work.)

Okay, so we have a credible writer with some experience in the franchise. That's good. What else? Brace yourself for a long reach. Bryan Singer, director of "X-Men" and "X2: X-Men United," has expressed some interest in returning to the franchise. Seeing as he and McQuarrie have worked before ("X-Men," "The Usual Suspects") would it be out of bounds to hope Singer could return? Furthermore, can Fox bury the hatchet with Singer?

He left years ago to direct "Superman Returns" for Warner Brothers, leaving Fox high and dry with the unfinished X-Men franchise. There were some unprofessional grumblings that Singer's future with Fox was over, but is that really true? Can Fox reel back in the man who birthed them the cash cow? Are they willing?

If all of these pieces were to come together I could see a very promising continuation of the X-Men franchise. Until then fingers remain crossed.

Selene's Return?

2009-08-16T02:31:00.002-05:00

For a franchise I thought was dead it sure is making a quick comeback. Not only is there news of a new Underworld movie, but of a new trilogy planned complete with the 3D gimmick.

Okay. Big deal. 3D. Do I care if Kate Beckinsale isn't in it? Nope. Good thing the plan is to bring her back then, eh? In what is arguably her most famous role (Selene), Kate Beckinsale is rumored to return to the franchise in what would undoubtedly be a sequel to the action packed "Underworld Evolution." No, it's not confirmed yet, but if the folks at Lakeshore Entertainment are serious about extending the franchise, it's time to bring back the player that made it the semi-cult brand it is.

Years ago, after "Evolution's" release, Beckinsale declared she wouldn't dawn the vampire teeth and tight leather to play Selene again. If Sean Connery has taught us anything, it's never say never. Money talks and Beckinsale's schedule doesn't exactly look like it's full of dazzling projects.

My take? The "Underworld" franchise is something that took me awhile to warm up to. At first I was put off by it, but looking back at the original two films I've found it easy to enjoy the light entertainment supplied by standout characters and over-the-top action. Lets not bash it for what it's not. They're fun films with a sleek, sexy style and they work. Besides, there aren't too many good vampire flicks out there-- For what it's worth I'll take Beckinsale's Selene over the nauseating players in "Twilight," or "30 Days of Night" any day.

REVIEW - "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" (2009)

2009-07-28T03:15:00.002-05:00

As I sat through “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” I released what an incredible uphill struggle this series has been. Lets face it, it is/is going to continue to be hard to make eight good movies. (Although it should just be seven.) After series highs with “The Prisoner of Azkaban” and, my favorite entry, “The Order of the Phoenix,” one becomes to expect certain greatness from these films. Anything less is simply unacceptable. With this in mind, as “The Half-Blood Prince” struggled to remain relevant halfway through, I began to feel cheated by this latest entry in the series.

Voldemort’s power is finally seeping in to the muggle world and Harry must work with Dumbledore to find the secret to Voldemort’s power. Harry’s sixth school year invites a new potions teacher that may hold the truth behind Voldemort, but first he must battle something far more dangerous: Teenage hormones.

At first “The Half-Blood Prince” really comes out of the blocks. The first third of the film lends the audience to the idea that Hogwarts is more dangerous than ever and Voldemort’s presence is becoming more and more threatening to the world. Furthermore, Draco Malfoy has been welcomed by Death Eater ranks to fulfill a mission for Voldemort-- This plot device is evident even throughout the film’s weaker moments and is a welcomed reminder when things start to resemble One Tree Hill.

I’m rather vocal about my dislike for “The Goblet of Fire;” while its not a terrible movie it’s one that spends too much time with current trends and teenage hormonal banter. While I don’t think “The Half-Blood Prince” sinks quite that low, there’s certainly an amount of awkward tension among these characters’ love lives. On the one hand it has lent to some of the more comical moments in the Harry Potter series. A personal favorite of mine is Harry’s reaction to Ron’s over-the-top girlfriend Lavender. On a train ride she spends a great deal of time drawing a heart around her and Ron’s name on a window. Harry, fittingly, can only say so much.

On the other hand, these romantic squabbles and comedic elements begin to distract from the larger problem: Voldemort is out there and the danger level is rising. The more we dive in to Harry’s love life with Ginny, or Hermione’s feelings for Ron, the less fear I have for Hogwarts and its school of wizards. The poor pacing between romance/comedy to mystery/fear makes it hard to enjoy the films’ more serious elements, thus making me wish much of the hormonal jousting was toned down.

Surprisingly, The Half-Blood Prince’s stronger moments come back to Tom Felton’s performance as Draco. Finally, the school bully has more on his mind than antagonizing Harry’s friends. One of the film’s absolute highlights includes a brief wand battle between him and Harry. Draco’s presence has newfound meaning in this film, and therefore invites a level of pity for him. Truly, Draco seems like an unfortunate pawn.

Another strong highlight is Dumbledore’s journey to a seaside cave with Harry. The following sequence results in director David Yates’ finest work since “The Order of the Phoenix” finale. Although the cave sequence, for all its suspense, doesn’t follow through the film’s peak. In what is perhaps the most anti-climatic ending in the entire Harry Potter franchise, Yates drops the ball in delivering what should have been the movie’s most important moment. Rather, the finale is dull and utterly disappointing.

Despite these shortcomings it’s inspiring to know that these actors give their all in these films. Radcliff, Grint, and the severely talented Emma Watson, simply get better with every installment. Alan Rickman stuck out particularly well in this sequel. If I haven’t said it before, I need to document it now: Rickman is Snape. He completely embodies the character with finite precision and is never upstaged at any point. It’s simply a shame these talents are tossed in less interesting conundrums this time around.

I write this review with a somber attitude. After the incredible fifth film, I was hoping Yates would keep the Potter fire burning bright— But I had a bad feeling before this movie was released, and as much as I wanted to love it, I can only see it as one of the series’ weaker entries. According to Yates, the outcome of the seventh book severely impacted the script for the sixth film. If that’s true, when all is said and done, I hope I can look back on “The Half-Blood Prince” with more fondness. Otherwise, I’d say it’s time to let screenwriter Steve Kloves go for good. Here’s a tip: Get Michael Goldenberg back immediately.

** out of ****

REVIEW - "Public Enemeis" (2009)

2009-07-28T00:02:00.001-05:00

Michael Mann is one of those peculiar filmmakers who, without question, have a long list of great looking movies. On that list reside classics like “Heat” and “The Last of the Mohicans.” He also directed one of my all time favorite films, “Collateral,” spinning Tom Cruise in to one of his greatest roles to date. He’s known for balancing style and substance so well that one can’t work without the other. “Public Enemies” epitomizes Mann’s strengths in a period piece, powerhouse that is proportioned to the grandeur of its characters.

Johnny Depp plays real life folk hero, and public enemy, John Dillinger. His dangerous lifestyle of bank robbing leads agent Melvin Purvis, (Christian Bale) promoted by J. Edgar Hoover, (Billy Crudup) to hunt him down with extreme force. When changing times back Dillinger in to a corner, he makes a last ditch effort to end his crime spree and evade his enemies.

The storyline is filled to the rim Dillinger’s bad-boy, pseudo-romance, his advancements in bank robbing and Purvis’s confident visage battling the crime Dillinger associates with. It’s intriguing enough of a storyline, but, quite frankly, the film could have had no plot and I would have been perfectly fine with Depp, Bale and Crudup reciting nonsense in their spiffy pinstriped jackets. There’s something to be said about actors so good you don’t want the movie to end simply because they’re fun to watch.

Depp is expectedly comfortable in the shoes of John Dillinger. He plays the character with an arrogant swagger only matched by the chiseled smirk on his face every time something excites him. Bale is shockingly surreal in his role as Melvin Purvis. A man of few words, Bale plays the strong and silent type with a gentleman inspired confidence that sets him far apart from Batman. Sporting an accurate, but not over bloated accent, Bale has delivered one his absolute finest performances. Ah, but the real surprise comes from Billy Crudup. Having to squint to realize it was the once Russell Hammond, (“Almost Famous”) Crudup’s embodiment of J. Edgar Hoover is hands down the height of his career. If he does not, at the very least, receive a supporting actor nomination at the Oscars, it further confirms my negative outlook on the has-been Academy.

As if these fine actors weren’t enough to push the movie to its end, Dillinger’s character slings the audience in a direction of forbidden excitement. Because of the audience’s love for Dillinger, but the acknowledgment that he is cinematically glorified, it never occurred to me that Purvis was a villain. Far from it. Dillinger and Purvis are the top men of different worlds. One upholds unrestrained freedom, and the other unrestrained justice. A standout scene in the film is when Purvis and Dillinger meet in a jail cell. The silent Purvis stares down the arrogant Dillinger, but the tension isn’t in their words. Depp and Bale have tapped in to a talent so great that even their competing glares exude character acting no other performer can pull off. It is here that I realized I didn’t want either character to fail, but as with most cinematic enemies, I knew one must go down.

The dramatic extremes of watching Dillinger and Purvis leads, inevitably, to sleek, 1930s chase scenes and shoot outs. While the docudrama style of these shootouts might remove the audience from the film’s reality, reminding them subtly of bad soap operas, it at least maintains a duty of keeping the characters and sets involved beyond the simple pleasures of an action sequence. For example, the chase sequence following Purvis’s shootout with the more vile ‘public enemies’ (one of my favorite scenes) looks more like an art house film than an action piece. Mann has shot this film with the love for digital cinema, pitting audiences against visceral colors and images instead of an onslaught of catered CGI.

Although Mann’s “Public Enemies” is an unapologetic work of fiction adapted from history, its glorified characters are at least believable in their 1930s home. At the film’s climax, Dillinger sits with his incomparable smirk at the conclusion of “Manhatten Melowdrama,” staring Clark Gable. Inspired by another character’s mindset, he marches outside with a legendary glare that insinuates a certain immortality about John Dillinger. “Public Enemies” is not an absolute truth, but it is likely. As such, Michael Mann has delivered the legend, and that, regardless of truth, is what we go to the movies for.

**** out of ****

Poll - What is Your Favorite Harry Potter Flick?

2009-07-27T22:43:00.003-05:00

I was rather surprised with the results of this one. I had money on "Prisoner of Azkaban," but instead "Order of the Phoenix" came out on top. I'm also surprised no one voted for the sixth film as it's received some praise. "Order of the Phoenix" is my favorite as well, but I've had some differing opinions on the franchise in comparison to others. So I suppose it's nice seeing the 5th movie held high out...err... nine people. Guess I shouldn't feel to victorious, eh?

Here's the results:

The Sorcerer's Stone - 0 Votes (0%)

The Chamber of Secrets - 0 Votes (0%)

The Prisoner of Azkaban - 3 Votes (33%)

The Goblet of Fire - 2 Votes (22%)

The Order of the Phoenix - Votes 4 (44%)

The Half-Blood Prince - 0 Votes (0%)

Pirates and Dark Knight Sequels Shooting Next Year?

2009-07-25T13:24:00.004-05:00

I give way to the 95% possibility that these comments are totally false, but they peaked my interest enough for me to post them.

Disney Head of Production, Oren Aviv, revealed the fourth "Pirates of the Caribbean" will shoot next May. He hopes Pirates 4 will be released summer of 2011:

“It’s important to get the story right and it’s important to me to scale it down, because we can’t get bigger… The movies have subsequently gotten bigger and bigger and very complicated and they were satisfying on so many levels obviously, but I want to kind of reboot the whole thing and bring it down to its core, its essence, just characters.”

Interesting... Reboot it eh? Johnny Depp is currently very interested in the next movie and Aviv hopes the next movie will be the first of yet another trilogy. Though Gore Verbinski (director of the first three "Pirates") was originally slated to direct the "Bioshock" movie, production has been severely stalled-- Leaving a possible return for him as well.

So what of Batman? Sadly it's nothing quite as in depth as Aviv on Pirates 4. Gary Oldman simply stated shooting would begin next year. Jokingly he added, "...Don't quote me on that."

So what does it mean? Probably, and very literally nothing. All the rumors that have been spit from actors about the next Batman sequel have been concluded as false or exaggerated. Until Warner Brothers comes out with an official announcement, I wouldn't get too excited. But Oldman's comment at least gives fans something to chew on until real news surfaces.

TRAILER - Ong Bak 2

2009-07-25T00:34:00.002-05:00

I've heard for a long time this was coming, but I had sense lost track of it. I loved Tony Jaa in the first "Ong Bak," and while I can't wait for a sequel I'm kind of disappointed it has no connection to the original. Tony Jaa plays Tieng, (in the first film his name was "Ting") a man born in to the royal family of Naresuan during the late 1500s. After his parents are murdered he goes through many trails and adventures to finally strike vengeance into his parents' murderers. I oversimplify, but if "Ong Bak" showed us anything it's that silly characters and badass fighter can make for one entertaining movie. While I don't get the vibe we'll see many comedic characters in this one, the action looks like its been ramped up to the next level.

"Ong Bak 2" gets a limited release in the States October 23rd.

TRAILER - Tron Legacy

2009-07-24T23:58:00.005-05:00

I haven't been updating much on the Comic Con front because, frankly, I've found most of the news from this year's Con rather bland. Surprisingly, the one thing that has caught my eye is the movie I probably had the least amount of interest in.

Lets face it. Yes, "Tron" was a groundbreaking movie. Yes, it did have incredible visuals and for this it will continue to take up a very big space in cinematic history books. But its storyline is flawed with poor character development, insufferable pacing and an overabundance of flash. Suddenly I engulf memories of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and its long winded visuals of the Enterprise flying around V'ger. Both movies look great! But a script should fill out the running time of a movie, not soulless visuals. In an attempt to make "Tron" in to some epic art house flick, it spirals out in to the worst B-Movie territory.

Here, however, is a trailer that takes a good idea and reels in the audience with curiosity. I've heard even people who haven't seen the original "Tron" are psyched for this movie. Perhaps the Tron franchise has more to offer than I thought. Time will tell.

Jeff Bridges' surprising appearance adds a layer of familiarity for fans, and a grasp of substance for newcomers. I hope the movie holds the same amount of spark and surprise as the trailer does.

Trek on DVD/Blu Ray This November

2009-07-18T03:13:00.005-05:00

The release date for the Enterprise's latest (or, rather, "first") mission has finally been announced. Along with it, an absurd amount of special features listed with the 2 Disc DVD release and 3 Disc Blu Ray release. Specs come from /Film:

DVD Specs:

Disc 1:
• Commentary—By director J.J. Abrams, writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, producer Damon Lindelof and executive producer Bryan Burk.
• A New Vision— J.J. Abrams’ vision was not only to create a Star Trek that was a bigger, more action-packed spectacle, but also to make the spectacle feel real. Every aspect of production—from unique locations to the use of classic Hollywood camera tricks—was guided by this overall objective.
• Gag Reel—Bloopers featuring the entire principal cast.

Disc 2:
• Digital Copy
• Deleted Scenes with Optional Commentary
o Spock Birth
o Klingons Take Over Narada
o Young Kirk, Johnny and Uncle Frank
o Amanda and Sarek Argue After Spock Fights
o Prison Interrogation and Breakout
o Sarek Gets Amanda
o Dorm Room and Kobayashi Maru (original version)
o Kirk Apologizes to the Green Girl
o Sarek Sees Spock
• To Boldly Go— Taking on the world’s most beloved science fiction franchise was no small mission. Director J.J. Abrams, writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, producer Damon Lindelof, and executive producer Bryan Burk talk about the many challenges they faced and their strategy for success.
• Casting— The producers knew their greatest task was finding the right cast to reprise these epic roles. The cast, for their part, talk about the experience of trying to capture the essence of these mythic characters. The piece concludes with a moving tribute to Leonard Nimoy.
• Aliens— Designers Neville Page and Joel Harlow talk about the hurdles they faced creating new alien species, recreating the Romulans and Vulcans, and designing the terrifying creatures on Delta Vega for the new Star Trek.
• Score— As a fan of the original series, composer Michael Giacchino embraced the challenge of creating new music for Star Trek while preserving the spirit of Alexander Courage’s celebrated theme.

Blu Ray Specs:

Disc 1:
• Commentary—By director J.J. Abrams, writers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman, producer Damon Lindelof and executive producer Bryan Burk.
• NASA News— This BD-Live feature gives viewers access to the latest NASA news about real space exploration. Learn about new mission developments and check out featured imagery from around the universe.

Disc 2:
• To Boldly Go—See description above.
o Branching Pods:
• The Shatner Conundrum
• Red Shirt Guy
• The Green Girl
• Trekker Alert!
• Casting—See description above.
• A New Vision—See description above.
o Branching Pods:
• Savage Pressure
• Starships—Abrams and production designer Scott Chambliss were careful to pay tribute to the design of the original Enterprise, but they also wanted to make it futuristic and cool for a modern audience. This chapter focuses on the unique stories behind the creation of the film’s starships.
o Branching Pods:
• Warp Explained
• Paint Job
• Bridge Construction Accelerated
• The Captain’s Chair
• Button Acting 101
• Shuttle Shuffle
• Narada Construction Accelerated
• Aliens—See description above.
o Branching Pods:
• The Alien Paradox
• Big-Eyed Girl
• Big Bro Quinto
• Klingons
• Drakoulias Anatomy 101
• Planets— >From the frozen landscape of Delta Vega to the desert plains of Vulcan, Scott Chambliss and the art department had a number of radically different planets to create. Abrams’ desire to shoot on real locations whenever possible led the production team to a number of strange and surprising locations.
o Branching Pods:
• Extra Business
• Confidentiality
• Props and Costumes— Property master Russell Bobbitt had the unique challenge of designing props that were both true to the original series and pertinent to today’s technology. Likewise, costume designer Michael Kaplan talks about how he designed costumes that paid homage to what came before yet were relevant and timeless.
o Branching Pods:
• Klingon Wardrobe
• Ben Burtt and the Sounds of Star Trek— When famed sound designer Ben Burtt was hired to create sounds for the first Star Wars film, he took his inspiration from the original “Star Trek” series. Burtt jumped at the opportunity to pay tribute to the sounds that sparked his career with the sounds he created for the new Star Trek.
• Score—See description above.
• Gene Roddenberry’s Vision— J.J. Abrams, Leonard Nimoy, previous Star Trek writers and producers, and scientific consultant Carolyn Porco describe and commend the optimistic and enduring vision of Gene Roddenberry.
• Deleted Scenes with Optional Commentary—See details above.
• Starfleet Vessel Simulator—Explore extensive data on the U.S.S. Enterprise and the Romulan ship, the Narada. Submerse yourself in breathtaking 360° views and close-ups and review detailed tech information.
• Gag Reel—See description above.

Disc 3:
• Digital Copy

Looks like Mr. Abrams will be getting my Blu Ray spent dollars come this fall. "Star Trek" will be released, November 17.

Iron Man Tidbits.

2009-07-16T12:55:00.003-05:00

Hey look! "Iron Man 2" is still being made! The lack of news concerning the movie isn't too surprising as I would assume a tight lid is going to be kept on it as much as possible. But the small leaks of info drizzling toward us is more than welcome. Here we have Iron Man, Whiplash and the first photo of Black Widow on the cover of EW. Next is a solo Black Widow photo-- Played by a slightly unrecognizable Scarlett Johansson, I pray this film doesn't dive in to too cheesy of territory. There's just something that screams "Catwoman" about it.

Enjoy the pictures though.

Poll - What Has Been Your Favorite Summer Flick So Far?

2009-07-15T19:38:00.004-05:00

While I'm not surprised about the winning result, I'm also proud that my hand full of readers didn't really take to the Transformers sequel. Well done. Star Trek won with a landslide, but the following results are:

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - 2 Votes (18%)

Star Trek - 6 Votes (54%)

Up - 2 Votes (18%)

Terminator Salvation - 0 Votes (0%)

Transformers Revenge of the Fallen - 0 Votes (0%)

Public Enemies - 0 Votes (0%)

Other - 1 Vote (9%)

REVIEW - "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008)

2009-07-11T18:15:00.004-05:00

Oscar bait. The quintessential trump card directors play to be loved by the ever so political Academy. James Cameron accomplished it with “Titanic,” Danny Boyle of course did it with “Slumdog Millionaire,” and David Fincher attempts it here. Now, I don’t want to immediately say that these are examples of directors “selling out.” Some would consider making films like “The Terminator” or “28 Days Later” a sell out. But, in a sense, these filmmakers are letting go of all their ingenious strengths in order to get a statue— What should you call it? Unfortunately, kissing up to the Oscar bigwigs doesn’t pay off for David Fincher. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is one of his weaker films.

The title character (played by Brad Pitt) is born with a ‘curious’ condition of aging backwards. He grows with his foster mother and enjoys a fruitful life of adventure aided by his glamor enchanted love interest, Daisy. (Cate Blanchette)

With a narration that becomes more distracting than helpful, Benjamin Button aspires to be that character we all want be— A man so curious about life he ends up traveling the world, volunteering for war, taking up peculiar jobs and hunting down the woman of his dreams. If this sounds familiar, it should. Forrest Gump did the exact same thing and with greater emotional success than "Benjamin Button." It’s not that Benjamin Button isn’t a strong lead, he’s simply too familiar. Fincher gives us the epic character like he’s based off a textbook. Such an approach damages a larger portion of the film's drama.

Although Benjamin’s cookie-cutter adventures tend to drag, the movie at least looks good while he’s doing it. The make-up effects aren’t the only exceptional visuals in the film. Sporting some beautiful, period appropriate architecture, from buildings to boats, “Benjamin Button” looks almost surreal in its accuracy. This adds a suitable hint of wonder behind the lead character’s condition. His changes are just as noticeable as the surroundings'.

While most of the movie rides on its brilliant shots, it doesn’t truly become interesting until Benjamin’s later years. Watching how his relationship unfolds with the aging Daisy becomes the story arc audiences are impatiently waiting for. Though his condition appropriately remains ambiguous, it doesn’t become of real interest until he watches himself age the opposite direction of Daisy. It’s simply a shame the movie takes so long to get to this point.

Because of the flimsy attention to each story arch, I’m not entirely convinced of Fincher’s investment in the film. With “Fight Club,” “Se7en” and “Zodiac” he ages his characters like a fine wine— Empowering them with a certain love that allows them to develop naturally and face their demons head on. Here, his characters feel like they’re being pushed to different areas just to keep the movie rolling. It’s as if Fincher forces Benjamin to age, stops him to tell a subplot, (that may or may not be interesting) and then rolls him again until the next speed bump.

This isn’t to say there aren’t bright moments. One of the better stories in the film is Benjamin’s relationship with Elizabeth Abbott. What begins as a harmful affair later pays the audience with a message of childlike hope. While the “follow your dreams” moral may sound cliché, it’s also an underused one in this day and age. (So perhaps its not that cliché.) Currently, world economy is at a terrible low, and countries are full of people unhappy with their jobs. Knowing this, I’m glad Fincher has it in him to tell people not to settle for anything they can grab and continue to dream big. Personally, I believe pushing to do what you love has to be one of the most admirable things a single person can accomplish. Making a movie based on this idea is ballsy only because so many might miss it. It’s become a foreign idea, but I applaud Fincher for pitching it.

There is no doubt in my mind Fincher has the talent to make a movie look good. The proof is all over "Benjamin Button." But if he’s going to go that far he should at least refrain from keeping his lead character restricted to a stereotype. The epic character doesn’t have to look like Forrest Gump. On the other hand a great director doesn’t have to own an Oscar either. I believe Spielberg was great long before he won an Oscar. Chris Nolan hasn’t even been nominated, but he has more talent than the creative energy of most directors combined. Fincher’s “sell out” to the Academy isn’t his greatest failing, but it’s a sign of needless desperation. Just make a good movie. Fewer and fewer Oscar flicks hit that bar these days.

**½ out of ****

TRAILER - More "District 9" Hype

2009-07-09T02:39:00.003-05:00

As if the previous trailer wasn't enough-- The new "District 9" trailer reveals more mystery involved in the flick, and that it may not be a straight up, fictional documentary. While I'm a little disappointed about the latter part, I'm still intrigued none-the-less. Take a gander:

Could "District 9" be the best summer film no one's heard about? Too soon to tell, but it looks good. August 14.

"District 9" The Summer Flick You Haven't Heard Of

2009-07-07T12:42:00.005-05:00

Truthfully, I'm not sure what to think of "District 6," except I know the advertising has been poor. Everyone I mention it to tends to tilt their head and raise an eyebrow.

From an innovative standpoint it reminds me of "Cloverfield." But it's clearly more formal than that. The trailer tricks you in to thinking its a documentary on illegal immigrating, or supplying for third world comfort. The uncanny awe that it's actually aliens startled me. When I try to explain the intriguing premise to others, it's no wonder I get a chuckle. It's hard to explain the idea while giving what you've seen justice. Thus, I'm going to let the trailer do all the work for me.

"District 9," hits theaters August 14.

REVIEW - "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" (2009)

2009-07-06T16:15:00.003-05:00

I want to begin this review with a perfectly understandable sense of acknowledgment. I know these movies are just supposed to be fun and light entertainment. There are actually very good movies that fit that bill and I wholly enjoy many of them. “Shoot’em Up,” “Versus,” “Live Free or Die Hard", and even Michael Bay’s very own “The Rock” are some great examples. So in an attempt to not sound like a film snob who can’t enjoy raw action blockbusters, let it be known, I understand what the point of “Transformers: The Revenge of the Fallen” is. I really do. Michael Bay himself is clearly not trying to hide what it is. It just doesn’t work.

In this sequel, Sam (Shia LeBeouf) returns to help the Autobots stop the newly revived Megatron and Decepticon warlord, The Fallen. When the Decepticons plan to wipe out Earth’s sun, Sam travels with Bumblebee and crew to find the Matrix of Leadership, save Optimus and run through sixty explosions in slow motion every ten minutes.

The story doesn’t expand much beyond my condescending synopsis. It makes you wonder why the movie was two and a half hours long. I’m still trying to figure that out because I’ve never sat through a movie and been able to list off all the pieces that could have, or should have, been cut. Bay’s self-indulgent insistence on including scenes of dogs humping, Sam’s mother getting high and his roommate freaking out are only a few small examples of footage that should have been left on the cutting room floor.

Even with such adjustments the movie would still be over bloated. Whole characters could have been chopped from the movie without any noticeable difference to the film’s plot. The African-American stereotyped twin robots tie with Jar-Jar Binks as the absolute worst CGI characters to prance on to the silver screen. Whether or not these characters are racist is an argument that gives this movie too much credit. Like much of the comedic elements they’re simply unbearable. I’m convinced Bay’s sense of humor resides in the head of a lobotomized eight-year-old boy.

As if the gratuitously terrible humor wasn’t enough to endure, LeBeouf’s character reaches a new romantic low with Megan Fox’s dolled up visage, dressed appropriate for shots that include her breasts bouncing in slow motion. Written more like a Spanish soap opera than a romantic squabble, the two mumble their lines at high speeds, perhaps trying to end the awkward interaction as soon as possible.

But lets break before I continue—Am I complaining about character development in a movie that has no desire to progress its characters? Indeed. Is pointing out a minor of many flaws involved with this movie an exercise in futility because the audience cares more about robots and explosions? Perhaps, but bear with me. The first movie moved swift and convincingly in transition from humans to transformers. In this film watching Sam and his human team of misfits feels like waiting for Christmas in January.

I’ve made it no secret that I can’t stand the overtly busy designs of these transformers. I’ll leave it at that, but it’s nice to know Bay at least traded his editing taste for some half-decent cinematography. For the first time I’m able to comprehend the action and appendages that are flowing from fist to blow between robots. Pity it’s too little to save any of the flash worth watching. Every explosion, every slow motion shot and every battle is ruined by the fact that there’s just too much of it. Bay has lost any comprehension of dramatic build up, allowing every explosive sequence to run together without any power. It is the singular driving force that drags “Revenge of the Fallen” down until you’re so tired of the action sequences it makes waiting for them even worse: Que the painfully boring scenes with Sam and his pack of idiots! (This is why characters matter.)

Can “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” be entertaining? Oh, sure! I certainly enjoyed the scenes with Optimus Prime flipping out of an airplane and kicking ass. And I should at least mention the forest battle as a highlight. But the problem is you would have to fast forward through a great deal of trite to view anything worth watching. “Revenge of the Fallen” is simply too big for its own good; high on the idea that more is better and delivering it unapologetically. Aspiring to be a fun ride is fine. Aspiring to have no substance at all is dangerous.

½ out of ****

REVIEW - "Terminator Salvation" (2009)

2009-07-05T21:36:00.004-05:00

When James Cameron finished “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” I don’t think he envisioned two sequels and a television series to follow. However, he can blame no one but himself for leaving it wide open with the films’ final shot of an open road. While “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” disappointed fans by ignoring all the wonderful themes from the previous movie, “The Sarah Connor Chronicles” actually expanded on those themes in ways James Cameron could not have done in a two hour film. Now, director McG, under the stern eyes of Terminator fans everywhere, walks up to bat. What is his solution? What is his take? The final cut isn’t a classic, but it certainly feels fresh.

The year is 2018. Judgment day has come and gone. Now a lone wanderer awakes in the midst of a futuristic war. Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) only remembers being a death row inmate. His meeting with a young Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) pits him before the stern and paranoid John Connor (Christian Bale). Their meeting ignites a journey to the truth of Marcus’s existence and John’s rise to leadership.

There is no doubt that “Terminator Salvation” is a more action heavy flick than any of the previous films, and easily more explosive (literally) than the budget restricted “Sarah Connor Chronicles.” What it lacks is an innate attention to characters. Luckily, the majority of the film focuses on the one character that does develop: Sam Worthington’s performance as Marcus Wright is quite possibly the single most astounding thing about “Salvation.” Despite a wealth of spoilers in trailer ads, Marcus is still captivating. Furthermore, the ambiguity of his past makes him more immediately interesting—Adding tension between him and the many characters he meets.

While the young Kyle Reese and John Connor don’t see the same amount of progress, they are, nonetheless, intriguing to see in new roles. The warrior John Connor is seen for the first time by audiences, but he’s still more man than legend. That young brat in “Terminator 2” has grown quite distrusting and angry. Bale makes the character worth watching as audiences realize this is not the John Connor we’re used to. Yelchin, struggling as another iconic character in “Star Trek,” is very comfortable in Reese’s boots. Channeling the best parts of Michael Bein, Yelchin doesn’t go as far to imitate the original Kyle Reese, but perfectly embodies his evolution from boy to soldier.

The next “big” addition is Moon Bloodgood as Blaire Williams. It’s clear McG wanted a strong female presence in his film, but “Salvations’” resident bad-girl has more in common with Alice from “Resident Evil” than Sarah Connor. After her by-the-numbers roll as a useful plot device, she sinks in to the background left for audiences to forget she was even in the film.

Beyond watching Worthington and familiar characters, “Salvation” doesn’t offer a whole lot beyond its action sequences. This isn’t to say the explosions and chase scenes weren’t fantastic—Every action piece is far more memorable and jaw-dropping than another, rather over-bloated robot flick this summer. It is entirely fair to say that McG has created the action feast of the summer. 2009 won’t see another movie with this much well framed grit and grind. It carries the film well enough, but at the expense of what made the first two Terminator films so great.

While characters take a backseat to the bang-n-booms, so does common sense. Toward the films’ climax, Skynet claims to have created the perfect infiltrator from the dead. It makes me wonder why it doesn’t do this more often as there’s plenty of dead bodies lying around. Wouldn’t about a hundred of those models be more efficient than putting the T-800 in production? Plot holes like this scathe the movie like an infant on a stove. Another mild example is after Skynet identifies Kyle he is simply held apart from the rest of the prisoners. Theoretically, if Kyle dies John can’t exist. So lets skip the strange idea that Skynet somehow knows why Kyle is important and scratch our heads as to why he wasn’t executed immediately.

Despite these obvious shortcomings I have to applaud McG for trying to recover James Cameron’s themes left for dead in “Terminator 3.” Though it might seem silly to quote, “There is no fate but what we make for ourselves,” in a world long since destroyed, it echoes the essence of hope left from the first sequel. Still, while “Salvation” struggles to relight the Terminator franchise, it’s primarily for those looking for an exceptional action romp. Otherwise, if you need more to chew on, stick to “The Sarah Connor Chronicles.”

**½ out of ****

Poll - What Is Your Favorite Star Trek Film?

2009-07-03T13:41:00.003-05:00

It's clear the half dozen people who visit my blog every month don't know much about Star Trek. With the best and worst Star Trek movies running for a tie, I scratch my head and wonder: "Are people really dumb enough to like 'Star Trek V'?" On the other hand, I suppose many just haven't seen these movies and thought it would be funny to vote for 'V.' Shame on them I suppose, but what are you going to do?

The results:

The Motion Picture - 0 Votes (0%)

The Wrath of Khan - 2 Votes (28%)

The Search for Spock - 0 Votes (0%)

The Voyage Home - 1 Vote (14%)

The Final Frontier - 2 Votes (28%)

The Undiscovered Country - 1 Vote (14%)

Generations - 0 Votes (0%)

First Contact - 1 Vote (14%)

Insurrection - 0 Votes (0%)

Nemesis - 0 Votes (0%)

REVIEW - "Star Trek" (2009)

2009-07-03T13:21:00.007-05:00

Waited long enough? I have as well-- Maybe to long, but long enough to think. There’s always anxiety when preparing for the reboot or alternate adaptation of previously envisioned franchises. I suppose this is because I know there’s only two real options after the fact: If I hate it, I know exactly what’s wrong and I’m able to reel it out like a five year old’s Christmas wish list. If I like it, I’m at a loss of what to say. How do you constructively review something you enjoy so much? The answer is simply “time.” What sits well with you? What flaws eventually rear their ugly head? If first impressions are lasting, then growth is revealing. Regardless of any qualms had with Abrams’ “Star Trek,” time has exposed one certainty: It is one damn good movie.

James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto) cross paths in a glorious space opera that pits them in front of an enemy from the future, Nero (Eric Bana). After altering the destinies of the future crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise, Nero seeks vengeance against the Federation. Young, daring, but ready, the legendary crew of the Enterprise embark on their first mission, boldly going where they have never gone before.

Star Trek seems to have become the staple franchise to define the modern nerd: Thirty-year-old male warthogs, living in the basement of their mother’s house, enjoying cheese puffs and arguing online about whether or not Diana Troy had more cleavage in “TNG” episode 23, season 4, or episode 12, season 6. (NOTE: There is never a father involved. It is always the “mother’s basement.”) Along with this farce, Trek has also been under scrutiny for some poor latter films and a weak, fifth television series. With the franchise declared dead rebooting the original concept seemed like the only relevant choice.

Gone is the Trek techno-babble that had put the latter entries under fire. Instead of wasting celluloid explaining how the warp engines work, or how a black hole can create a portal to an alternate universe, “Star Trek” treats the science fiction elements as simple plot devices. The audience can suspend themselves to believe these characters can travel through space. They don’t need a fictional, onscreen textbook to explain how.

Instead, Abrams reignites the fire of “Bones”, Uhura, Sulu, Chekov and Scotty, giving each character their time in the sun. But the film owes its heart to Kirk and Spock. Not since “Wrath of Khan” has Jim Kirk been so interesting. Instead of waiting for that midlife crisis to kick in (“Star Trek II”), Abrams delivers a fresh Kirk with an arrogant, adolescent swagger lifted from his days without a proper father. Early in the film we see a young Kirk throw a 1960s corvette off a cliff. I still believe this to be an important scene due to its insistence that this is not the 1960s “Trek.” We don’t live there anymore. This is a new era and Trek needs to be relevant again. So watching the main character throw the embodiment of the 1960s in to a canyon felt ever so appropriate.

Spock, brilliantly portrayed by Zachary Quinto, is reborn to audiences as a character fighting to keep control of his human side. We’ve never seen Spock endure so much for being part human. The idea that he’s lived a life of people constantly getting a rise out of him becomes a wonderful staple for why he joins Starfleet. Though some feel Spock was too emotional, I feel it perfectly embodied this younger incarnation and his struggle to control both himself and his career.

As Kirk and Spock find themselves butting heads and learning from each others’ personalities, the journey of these two characters brings us to some exciting places. Creating an alternate universe for these icons frees them from the suffocating stronghold of the beloved (and endured) Star Trek cannon. While following “cannon” is important to many fans, it’s also the source of Trek’s recent failure. Hitting the restart button and giving audiences a universe where anything could happen has unleashed the franchise to unlimited possibilities and a heightened sense of drama. Anything could happen. Anyone could potentially… die!

So with the summer’s strongest characters, incredible special effects, and cinematography that should make the directors of Trek past ever so jealous, is there a downfall? Nothing immediate, but certainly worth noting, “Star Trek” continues the streak of weak villains with Nero’s bombastically brief explanation for vengeance. While Eric Bana makes more out of the villain than he’s worth, the character side steps any common sense. Coming from a universe where Romulus is destroyed and harboring the technology to save it from said, future destruction, Nero decides to wipe out the Federation instead. Why not save the planet first? What happened to villains like Khan? The last three Trek films just haven’t cut it in terms of great villainy.

And while each actor delivers with the utmost gusto, sometimes I wonder if the movie is border lining self-parody. For example, Karl Urban gives one of his best performances as Dr. McCoy, but Anton Yelchin, throwing down Chekov’s accent dead on, feels more like a clown in his introductory scene. His accent’s shortcomings worked in “Star Trek IV,” but I’m torn by whether or not it works here. So where’s the line? What is Urban doing right that Yelchin could learn from? Perhaps its simply experience as Urban was one of the more confident looking actors on screen. You can’t simply do impersonations; you have become that iconic character to make it work.

But stop me before I nitpick too much. Writers Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman have finally written a script worth being proud of. While it isn’t an iron-clad screenplay it fell in J.J. Abrams’ fine-tuned hands and the result was staggering. In the first ten minutes of the movie, George Kirk hears the wail of his son over an intercom while ramming his starship into Nero’s behemoth. What could have been a by-the-numbers opening by Orci and Kurtzman, ended as one of the most emotionally, gut wrenching sequences in the film. What Abrams’ has done is create a fun joyride while maintaining a stern attention to characters. The summer probably won’t get much better than this. Abrams’ can keep his day job. The Enterprise flies again.

***½ out of ****

REVIEW - "X-Men Origins: Wolverine" (2009)

2009-05-03T23:37:00.005-05:00

In 2000, director Bryan Singer helped ignite the comic book superhero explosion in Hollywood with “X-Men.” In 2003 he raised the bar for these movies with the exceptional “X2: X-Men United.” By the time 2006 rolled around Singer had moved on and fans endured the terrible “X-Men: The Last Stand” as a final bout. By then I was only hopeful that someone might give the franchise a proper ending with a fourth film; but Fox opted to continue the series through the cheaper route of solo-prequels and “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” was born. The prospect of these origin tales is actually quite intriguing, but finding someone to tell them properly may be a problem. If the future X-Men Origin films are anything like “Wolverine” we may be in for a long, bumpy continuation of the franchise.

In 1845 a young James (aka, Logan, aka soon-to-be Wolverine) discovers the identity of his true father and, upon killing him for the murder of his adopted father, runs away with his brother Victor. (aka, soon-to-be Sabertooth) We get a montage of these two fighting various wars throughout history and then taken by Col. William Stryker who heads a team of mutants for special ops. James, who later goes by his last name Logan, decides the job is too bloody for him and leaves the team for a quiet life with his girlfriend Kayla. Of course her death forces him to rejoin Stryker and transform him in to the character we all know and love in the X-Men.

By all means the origin of Wolverine should be the most interesting part of his character, but by the end of the film I can’t help but think he was more fascinating in “X-Men” and “X2.” The film seems to fast-forward through the more interesting segments of his life. What makes Logan a more ethically empowered person than Victor? What’s happened all these years to make these men the characters they are? Furthermore, what was the impact of Logan’s real father suppose to impose? Other than setting Victor and Logan up as brothers it added no substance to their tortured background and is never mentioned again.

The fact is the movie didn’t want to spend time developing the characters. Instead of acting like two men that have seen over a century of battles we start with the action hero cliché of two men “tickled” by death. The movie is more interested in an extravaganza with mutants that didn’t make it in the first three X-Men movies. There is no regard for Logan’s 100+ years of life.

Meanwhile, his relationship with Kayla seems superfluous compared to everything he’s been through. Why does her death set him on fire? I find it hard to believe he hasn’t lost other love interests after being alive for over a century. Did he act this way over them? Did he even consider the consequences of getting in a relationship with someone that will age while he doesn’t? No, because in the end, Wolverine’s character is reduced to nothing but the world’s greatest excuse for absurd action sequences. He can’t die. He heals immediately. His bones are indestructible. Since when did creating a character impervious to everything become interesting? Isn’t that what we’ve been trying to change with Superman?

Even with the more interesting and vital segments of Logan’s back-story, the movie seems to fall short of delivering the drama. Wolverine’s flashback to his “Weapon X” experience in the early X-Men movies are far more traumatic than what “Origins” reveals. And the reason behind his memory loss is rather disappointing. I’m still trying to figure out how that makes sense. (If his brain heals, wouldn’t it only heal around the object? Wouldn’t it still be in his head? Why didn’t the CT scan in “X-Men” reveal anything?)

Can it get worse? Well I’ll put it this way: Add Sabertooth’s character reinvention (which doesn’t fit Tyler Mane’s previous portrayal in the slightest) and the hideous Deadpool-in-name-only, and you can almost forgive the poor CGI claws and terrible green screen work.

On the bright side the movie features some nice and admittedly surprising cameos that should put a smile on any X-Men fan. The action, while absurd, is pretty fun if you just sit back and turn your brain off. And, as always, Hugh Jackman's presence could make "Troll 2" watchable, so he has no trouble looking great onscreen. I suppose for the weak story it tells the movie can be pretty fun, but the X-Men franchise used to be more than just fun. I remember it used to be quite good. Alas, Wolverine is just more interesting with his memory gone—It’s just as well. I wish my memory were wiped clean of these events too.

*½ out of ****

TRAILER - Halloween 2

2009-04-24T22:26:00.004-05:00

I should have titled this as "Rob Zombie's Textbook Raping of Mike Myers." A sequel I can deal with, but what's with emo-mother Myers in the funny white dress giving Mike orders? The horror-cliched trailer might have been effective had I not started laughing when Mike's mother, from the previous movie, returns as some cheesy apparition. Yes, yes. I know. A trailer shows things out of context and the cheesiest of lines and images can end up being very compelling. But given the ho-hum, uneven direction of Zombie's first "Halloween," I can't see it being too intriguing.

So Mike's been killing everyone because he thinks his mommy is telling him too. Why relate this all back to his mother? Didn't we do this in "Psycho?" Fair attempt Zombie. Fair attempt.

Enjoy!

Predator Reboot, "Predators"

2009-04-24T22:15:00.005-05:00

It was inevitable. The Predator franchise is getting a fat reboot from 20th Century Fox. I know. Fox. That's already a huge strike against it. However, there's hope; Robert Rodriguez is producing the film which is possibly [loosely] based on a treatment he wrote for a Predator sequel over a decade ago.

Looks like the project will mostly be headed by Rodriguez's Troublemaker Studios instead of being grounded at Fox. So that's a plus, right?

Rodriguez isn't directing, but with him overseeing the project you have to wonder what it will be like. I'm getting more and more comfortable with franchise reboots because they don't always mean "remake," and this doesn't feel like a full blown remake either. Afterall, "Batman Begins," and "Casino Royale" gave fresh slates to their respective franchises. "Terminator Salvation" and "Star Trek" look great as well-- But then there's the flip side: Rob Zombie's "Halloween," for example.

So will this be a good thing or not? One thing is for sure, Fox hasn't been on the ball lately and to attempt a reboot with their current track record is a bit of risk. However, Rodriguez on board does bode well.

July 7th of next year: "Predators." (Yikes... sooner than you thought, huh?) Rodriguez and Fox better find a director and writer fast!

Arnold... Are You In "Terminator Salvation" or Not?

2009-04-22T21:08:00.005-05:00

This struck me as both amusing and curious. Director McG and crew have been bombarded by different media fronts with questions regarding the Governator's cameo in the new movie. Apparently he agreed to be in the movie as long as he didn't have to perform.

No. There's no typo in the sentence above. This is true. As rumored awhile back the idea for the original Terminator's cameo is to digitally graph Arnold Schwarzenegger's face over another actor who is portraying the T-800 sent back in time to kill his mother.

“I made it very clear that I don’t have the time to do the movie… I said that I would be willing to be in the movie if they get the technology together, and so they are working on that right now.” Says Schwarzenegger.

According to McG, the crew is still having a hard time getting it to look right. After all, it needs to look pretty seamless to buy. I remember Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's CGI cameo in "The Mummy Returns" quite vividly and that was a terrible attempt at recreating a person. I hope the technology is there because, while I'm sure the movie would be fine without an appearance from Schwarzenegger, the Terminator movies have a legacy of pushing the envelop of special effects. (At least T1 and T2 did.) I feel it would be kind of a shame if "Terminator Salvation" didn't go the full stride to show how weak "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" really was.

In the meantime we have the fantastic episodes from "The Sarah Connor Chronicles" to tied us over. Yes, I know season 2, and maybe even the entire series, is over, but Hulu is an amazing thing. Am I right?

I'm looking forward to "Terminator Salvation." I just hope what we've seen and heard thus far isn't too good to be true.

Changing a Few Things

2009-04-19T02:11:00.003-05:00

A brief note concerning the content my blog will contain from here on out. As you may have noticed I've grown weary of simply reporting news about different movies. There's plenty of sites where you can get that from. Oh I'll still report new things that strike my fancy, but from here on it'll mostly be a reflection on film and current film bytes. Don't worry, before I dive head first in to rants and commentaries I'll get you up to speed.

When I first started this blog I intended to use it to keep friends and family up to date about things in the world of cinema. I believe that attempt has failed in some form and I've decided to take my blog in a new direction. I promise it won't seem like a drastic change, but it will be a little different.

Until the next post-- See you at the theaters.