What to watch for in November

As promised, I have chosen a  number of titles opening throughout this next glorious month (starting tomorrow, dummy) that probably, and in some cases definitely, deserve your attention.

Warner Bros.

So we start with Due Date. This is kind of a no brainer since it is hard to imagine how this movie could not be funny. Robert Downey Jr., and Zack Galifianakis is a duo that cannot be overlooked. Todd Philips made this film in between The Hangover and the now-in-producion The Hangover 2 which is supposed to take place in Thailand this time with all the same characters plus a cameo from Liam Neeson. "Hangover" was a surprisingly funny and successful movie thanks primarily to the hilarity that is Galifianakis and I hope we can see a lot of the same in this film that, I think, has an even more promising premise. There's really no comedic plot like the classic road trip. So many possibilities. This one hits theaters this Friday, Nov. 5th. and you can check out the trailer here if you haven't already seen it enough times.

20th Century Fox

Next we've got the true story directed by Slumdog Millionaire (and many other fantastic movies) director Danny Boyle, and starring James Franco, 127 Hours. It's a bold choice for entertainment and a storyline that seems like it would be pretty boring. Based on the story of Aron Ralston, a sort of adventurous, out-doors-ish type, who finds himself fallen into a canyon in the desert with a boulder pinning his arm. The title tells you something of how much time he spent there, and I believe it's no secret that he eventually has to cut his arm off with a pocket knife to escape. As a result, I read that this movie apparently has the most disturbing/uncomfortable noise ever. Definitely something to send chills down your spine. HOWEVER, I'm still really excited and early reviews on this say it's awesome, and I'm a huge Boyle fan. Watch for this one opening in select theaters on November 5th (Friday) and probably opening up wider after that, and here's the trailer too.

What I'm Watching: Invictus

Warner Bros.

Why I watched it: While it is often the case that many of director Clint Eastwood's movies are melodramatic and borderline cheesy, I for one still think he's a great director. Yes, Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, and Mystic River all have moments that make my eyes roll, but they're still very like-able movies, for the most part, especially 'Mystic River'. And Unforgiven is probably my favorite Western and definitely Eastwood's best. So now that I've seen just about all of the movies Eastwood has directed, I figured I'd watch Invictus too. For the most part, reviews were positive and it was clear this was a crowd pleasing movie but movie-buff friends of mine thought otherwise. So, I had to see for myself.

What I thought: It's just about all that I expected. It does its best to be majestically uplifting and a soaring crowd pleaser, and in those cases, I think it succeeded. The rugby scenes especially were intense and fun to watch and better done than a lot of sports movies out there. But there was a big chunk missing that I definitely felt. The problem with racism and rebuilding the country of South Africa with Nelson Mandela (played by the always great Morgan Freeman) as the newly elected president is a huge part of the history surrounding this story. Many critics of the historical issues surrounding this movie (my highly studious brother included) scoff at the idea that the movie tries to show how rugby solved racism during this time. And while one might get that impression, it didn't come across that strongly to me. I just think much of the feelings of strife and struggle were lost by not showing/explaining enough and just focusing on the rugby team captain (Matt Damon) and his team of really buff dudes who look like gorillas.

Should YOU watch it: If you're sports movie fan and love movies that lift you up and feel really joyous and rousing at the end, you'll probably really enjoy it. Even though sports movies are generally one of my least favorite genres, I still found myself pretty engaged in this story. I would not suggest it for anyone who is extremely annoyed by historical inaccuracies or failure to address things that may be more important than winning the world cup in rugby. 

Week's Trailers: Bieber fever of the Rite, Daft Punk, and Sanctum

Justin Bieber: Never Say Never

Good god....so let me get this straight: this16 year old (SIXTEEN!), who's only been famous for like a year, and who is generally excepted by most as sort of a joke (this is could just be me being ignorant of Bieber fans, but me no care) is now being made into a documentary in 3D? How long is this movie going to be, like 10 minutes? What is there to say about him? I mean, a movie about John Lennon or Johnny Cash makes sense because they're REALLY good and SUPER famous. The title alone makes it seem like his story is the classic American (even though he's CANADIAN) story of success, from poverty to riches and a fame. When in reality, Bieber is just like MILLIONS of other kids out there who has been singing ever since he was little and dreaming of being a rockstar. He was discovered singing at his church and suddenly became famous. To me this isn't anything THAT amazing, he's just a product of the industry. No offense to his success or him as a person, all the best to him and his career (even if I hate his music), but seriously guys? For realz?

The Rite

Oh PLEASE. Did Hollywood learn anything from The Last Exorcism? People are SICK of movies about demons and exorcisms. At least, I know I am. I did really enjoy The Exorcism of Emily Rose, but even that pushed the limits. How many movies (Paranormal Activity included) are going to keep trying to scare people with the idea of demons? Either you believe in them, or you don't. And for those of us who do (myself included), movies like these are a joke and it's not something to be messed around with. And when you try to portray something like this on film (no matter how "true" it supposedly is) you're going to walk away maybe a bit startled, but ultimately, it's just a movie. But seriousness aside, boy has Anthony Hopkins given up on making good movies! The man's a fantastic actor and is following in the footsteps of so many older actors these days by settling for drabble like this (yes, I just made up the word 'drabble'). This looks to me like all the same old scares and thrills and it makes me yawwwwwwn.

News: Chris Evans' 'Captain America: The First Avenger' revealed

Entertainment Weekly

Rad dude, rad. Not much to say about this really, just some eye candy for the day that is pretty exciting. Go check out the article that accompanies the debue of this pic over at Entertainment Weekly.

News: Nolan reveals 'Batman 3' title

Warner Bros.

Say hello to The Dark Knight Rises! Christopher Nolan revealed the news in a review over at Hero Complex and was also kind enough to let us know the villain will NOT be the Riddler. I guess that's good news too. Now that we safely say the Riddler and Mr. Freeze are out of the picture, who else is left? We've got Catwoman, the Penguin, Poison Ivy, Bane, and a whole lot more which you can see on a handy-dandy list over at wikipedia. I think you can rule out basically all of the silly villains because we know Nolan isn't interested in anything lighthearted. He's established an intense, dark precedence that cannot be changed at this point and it works fantastically. Nolan said old characters will return and some new ones will be introduced which of course is intentionally vague and annoying for people who want to know EVERYTHING. So let the rumor mill and guess work begin until any official news surfices pertaining to the cast!

What I'm Watching: "Lucky Number Slevin"

The Weinstein Company

Why I watched it: I liked the cast and it has always had my curiosity. At the time it was released, it was marketed as a slick, fast, gritty action movie with a touch of comedy likened to Guy Ritchie's slew of London underground-crime movies. I'm definitely a fan of Ritchie's work and Sir Ben Kingsley (even though not pictured above) has always sparked my interest because of his wide range of roles and he can often pick some great stuff. The presence of Morgan Freeman and Bruce Willis definitely adds to the appeal but I usually know what to expect from them. I'm not very familiar with Josh Hartnett  although he's definitely recognizable. I really only think of 30 Days of Night when I see him, which does not bode well on his behalf (turrrible movie).

What I thought: As far as the feel and tone goes, it seems like Lucky Number Slevin tried to go for a mixture of The Usual Suspects and Smokin' Aces. It creates an obvious mystery like both films do but does not get too deep into the violence and grit like "Aces". The comedy factor holds up pretty well through most of it like "Aces" but then at the end it suddenly gets super serious and even slightly disturbing which is a major change. It tries out some interesting story-telling techniques to 'play' with its audience that would've worked a lot better if it hadn't given away so much in the beginning. I also wanted to know more about Kingsley and Freeman's characters and more background. It was like an introduction to a series of movies and was too neatly wrapped up at the end. But for the most part, I was surprised and enjoyed myself and it even caused me to think more than usual with most action movies which definitely puts it above average.

Should YOU watch it: If you like movies like "Aces", "Suspects" and that mixture of comedy and violence, I would suggest it. If you follow it well, nothing will really surprise you that much, but it's still a pretty good piece of film-making.

Week's Trailers: Emotional Drama to Aliens, Killers, and Mystery!

Unknown

So I know Liam Neeson is now a badass since his role in Taken and other movies to date as well as a freaking LION in Narnia, but this? I mean there's code, fake-wives, coma, explosions, car-accidents, GUNS! It's really too much. Not too mention Betty Draper aka January Jones is in it (without Don!). This is all sorts of crazy. How do they expect to fit this into a movie? This trailer is just a string of mysteries and poor Liam looks so overwhelmed, but, thankfully he hasn't forgotten. OR HAS HE??? I will be very impressed if they manage to make sense of this plot that looks more like someone brainstorming on a white board than a real story.

Scream 4

I have no familiarity with the Wes Craven's Scream franchise. I also have no interest in it at all. So with that history, I have no idea what's going on in this trailer. Are all the people in this group killing people? Is it some sort of sadistic study? Why does a lady fall onto a car? You know, obvious stuff like that. This trailer is obviously meant for current fans of the series since a noob like me cannot make heads or tails of it. Plus, Craven is just silly. 

What I'm Watching: "Payback"

Icon Entertainment

Why I watched it: Although Mel Gibson is not the most popular person these days, it's hard to deny that he's not an entertaining actor and a pretty talented one at that. Of course, he's done his fair share of clunkers, but you can't forget Braveheart and Lethal Weapon. So Gibson is basically the only reason I watched this because he's still a favorite actor of mine, even though he's sort of totally CRAZY these days.

What I thought: When you have a movie with taglines like "No more Mr. Nice Guy" and "Get ready to root for the Bad Guy", you better live up to those statements, especially with a title like Payback. I expected relentless violence and Gibson to be a total badass who has lots of crazy shootouts and stuff. Sadly, there really isn't much action and Gibson's character comes across more as a jerk (especially in the beginning) than a angry man out for revenge. It has a definite '90's flare to it that makes it more cheesy than I would've liked. If that cheesiness had come from more action/violence, I would've been OK with that. Instead, the tone is just dull and silly and the plot goes places without any reason.

Should YOU watch it: You could live without it. If you're a die-hard Gibson fan (are there any left today?), you've probably already seen this, but if not, sure. But for the action-movie buffs, it definitely doesn't perform very well in that department (even though the picture above says otherwise). 

Review: Never Let Me Go

Fox Searchlight

Of all the movies that have come out so far this Summer and early Fall, I put the most into watching Never Let Me Go. After seeing the trailer a long while back I researched the book by Kazuo Ishiguro a little bit and my brother told me to read it because it's apparently really good. So I did, and really enjoyed it. I basically read the book in preparation for the movie, something I hadn't really done before, surprisingly. After doing so, the trailer made it look even better because all three of the actors (Keira Knightley, Carey Mulligan, and Andrew Garfield) looked like they fit the parts so well and the settings, color, and look of it all seemed perfect.

But you always have to remember that it's a book, and a movie is quite different. What we get from director Mark Romanek and screenwriter Alex Garland is basically a short story version of the novel. In the book we get this highly detailed, emotional narrative from Kathy H (Mulligan) looking back on life that paints such beautiful and heartbreaking pictures of Hailsham school, and her friends Ruth (Knightley) and Tommy (Garfield). It's a story of subtle pain and change that is so hard to capture on screen. 

Review: Red

Summit Entertainment

Red is one of those movies you really want to be good after seeing the trailer for it. Bruce Willis, John Malkovich, Morgan Freeman, and Helen Mirren is a killer cast. Following in the wake of the very disappointing The Expendables (my review here), one could only hope that another action movie with more older actors would be better. The choice to make it an action comedy was probably the best idea too.

It's certainly vastly different from 'Expendables' and although it may have a weak plot with a few weak characters, its light-hearted, PG-13 violence and action along with this familiar cast makes for a rather pleasant outing to the movies. Willis stars as Frank Moses, a retired CIA black-ops agent who is bored with life and calls the pension office just to talk to Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker). However, Moses soon finds himself under attack by 'wet squads' (assassin teams) and immediately knows something's up so he forcefully takes Sarah (because she's in danger too) along with him and sets out to uncover why people want to kill him. Of course, we're all just waiting for him to get the 'team' back together of fellow 'red' (Retired and Extremely Dangerous) operatives (enter Malkovich, Mirren, Freeman). 

Week's Trailers: Nic Cage and The Rock

Drive Angry

This is the era of Nicolas Cage. The man is probably one of the most interesting actors out there which sounds strange because of how terrible all his movies have been for about the past..oh, like decade or so with very few exceptions. But he still manages to make headlines for all his quirks like supposedly not eating animals that have gross sexual activity or something like that. I often wonder if he knows how crazy everyone thinks he is and just goes along with it. Sort of like the whole Sad Keanu thing because I'm almost positive Mr. Reeves knows what's going on and enjoys posing for these still hilarious photos. In the same way, Cage really doesn't care what people think and continues to make terrible movies. But don't these 'terrible' movies just look like so much fun?! "Drive Angry" makes me wonder if they forgot to name it "Ghost Rider 2" (which is now in production btw so be excited), because it seriously has almost the exact same plot. The line at the beginning of this trailer just KILLS me: "Tell 'em: I'M COMIN'." Can the man deliver a line with less intonation or any sense of acting at all? I doubt it. Oh Nic Cage, it is truly a love/hate relationship we have! But you still make me happy, especially since I found out Season of the Witch is actually still happening January 7 and didn't just disappear! Aren't you thrilled?!

Wild Target

This looks to be one of those trailers that has some actors I really like (Bill Nighy, Emily Blunt) but doesn't look like it'll do them justice. Of course it might just be the structure of the trailer that makes it look not so good. For one, I simply LOATHE that narrator who does all the trailers for stupid romcoms and family films like "a family adventure you've never seen before!" with that stupid, high, annoying voice. You know? Plus it's done in the style of one of those dumb comedies. And although it has Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Rupert Everett in it too, it still doesn't look so good. We can only hope that this is false advertising and that it might be  OK. Because I can't see it being much more than that, sadly.

Faster (trailer #2)

So I guess now the title makes sense. Because "he's fasta" as the guy with the accent says. But thankfully, one thing has always made sense to me so far about this and that is NO ONE who knows anything thinks this looks good, and that's not just because it looks like he shoots Mr. Echo at the end (LOST!). It's because we get the whole revenge thing! We know you'll kill a few guys, pick up someone (enter: girl) who slows you down, and then there's some twist as to who you have to kill or whatever. It's all riddled down to a basic math formula now. There's no hiding the fact that this is only for Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson to take a side-road from his family movie trend for a bit to show the dudes he can still kick-ass. And of course, the potential violence and action is all that appeals. Oh, and he has tattoos. 

So that's it for this week, really a pretty lame week for trailers, unfortunately. Potential reviews of "Red" and "Never Let Me Go" coming this weekend!

News: The Lizard confirmed as Spider Man reboot villain

tbreak.com

Just when Rhys Ifans was cast as the new villain for this NEW Spider Man and all sorts of speculation exploded as to who that villain would be, we have an answer from The Wrap! And it's this thing pictured above, The Lizard. And honestly, I kind of hope Spider Man loses because this guy looks INTENSE. And by INTENSE I mean AWESOME.

According to the comics and nerds who know more than I care to, The Lizard is actually Dr. Curt Conners, basically Peter Parker's favorite professor played by Dylan Baker in the first Spidey movies who probably has some sort of lab accident which makes him so AWESOME. And as we all know, (because WE ALL read my blog religiously) we should all be very excited to see Rhys Ifans take on this role because he's super cool. And Welsh.

What I'm Watching: "Push"

Summit Entertainment

Why I watched it: No particular reason. I guess I'm just a sucker sometimes like so many other people for those movies about people with super-powers. I mean, who isn't? It's basically the only thing this movie has to attract people. Chris Evans (Sunshine, and future Captain America) is a pretty like-able actor and can be cool and Djimon Hounsou (Blood Diamond) is great at the silent, intimidating black-guy roles. So yeah, not much reasoning behind this one for watching it.

What I thought: Bleh. I almost forgot to write this today even though I watched the movie last night that's how forgettable it is. It tries to have a twisting, turning plot that has a "surprise" ending but by the time it figures stuff out, I really don't care anymore. And why the heck are these people's X-Men-like powers so random? Like these guys that just scream really really loud until you die? What? It's all just a mish mash of obvious attempts to have a smart plot that just gets boring and we don't really care that much about the main characters because we aren't given much cause to. Plus, Dakota Fanning's character is a little, whiny, annoying brat and I just want to kick her.

Should YOU watch it: I doubt it. There's plenty of other movies that are worth the spot in your Netflix cue or torrenting device (BUT YOU'LL GET ARRESTED FOR STEALING!!!). As said before, it's another lame attempt to be something like X-Men, and it sort of ends like there could be a sequel? Bad idea, because I don't know who would be interested in one at all. 

News: Tom Hardy cast in Nolan's "Batman 3"

Warner Bros.

This is one of those news bits that really has nothing to it. We don't know anything about the said movie's plot line, the rest of the cast, or whatever. But when some name pops up that has particular significance, of course it flies all over the internet. So it is with Deadline's news that Inception actor Tom Hardy has been cast in director Christopher's Nolan's follow up to 2008's The Dark Knight. And as said on Cinematical, it's hard for me to imagine Hardy playing anyone else but the villain. Of course, no one knows who the villain will be. Before I thought that the most likely villain would be the Riddler since all the other villains (Freeze, Catwoman, Penguin) are just too dumb even though the Riddler isn't exactly serious enough himself. And since the Joker is pretty much out of the picture, who's left? Even though Heath Ledger's performance has be engraved in stone and considered untouchable, part of me wishes Nolan would just cast someone else as the Joker. He's Batman's greatest villain, after all, and I could see Hardy (or Joseph Gordon-Levitt) maybe pulling it off.

However, there's another possibility. According to my brother, there's a Batman comic called Hush where a mysterious figured is going around trying to sabotage Batman's work and kills people on the side. Plus, he enlists the help of other known Batman villains to try and kill the dark knight. So this guy is sort of a crazy serial killer intent on ruining Batman and eventually killing him. Sounds like a great story to me with a lot of twists and turns. And I can definitely see Hardy doing an amazing job as a crazy killer; he definitely proved his ability to play an insane person in Bronson. Well, so it's really on speculation at this point in regards to the entire movie. Although I think we can count on Christian Bale coming back, at least, with Michael Caine and Gary Oldman too. 

What I'm Watching: "The Invention of Lying"

Warner Bros.

Why I watched it: Because Ricky Gervais is hilarious. That's basically why I watched this. Although I had heard that it was pretty funny from a few other people. It had pretty good supporting cast too with Jennifer Garner, Louis C.K., etc. Although the concept of this guy who is the first human being to lie seemed a bit cheap and almost guaranteed to have a cliche ending, I watched it anyway.

What I thought: It was definitely a lot funnier than I expected. Although I expected the jokes about everyone saying embarrassing, mean, stupid, weird things because they can't lie to get old, it really just kept on being funny. Gervais' reactions to things is great and I did not expect so many cameos! Throughout we see Tina Fey, Jeffrey Tambor, Jonah Hill, Jason Bateman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton, and a few more which was really fun. HOWEVER, there's a HUGE thing about this movie that was so blatantly agenda based and something I found mildly offensive. You would think he just tries to use lying to get the girl (which he sort of tries to at first), but what really ends up happening is he creates a religion because people believe him when he's speaking to his dying mother about the beautiful place she's going to when he was just saying so to cheer her up. He then goes on to create rules made by some "man in the sky" just to give people something to believe because he feels bad for them. It's so blatantly an Atheist message that says religion is basically a bunch of lies made up to make people feel better and it's all about how good you are. In the end, Gervais tells Garner's character that she has to choose what she wants and that no one else can tell her what to do or what's "right" or the "truth". It was such a low-blow made out in such a simplistic, laughable fashion that'll just make Atheists feel good when in fact it's a ludicrously simple view presented in the film.

Should YOU see it: I'd say it's worth seeing because of the laughs you'll get out of it (because there are many) one of my favorites being when he goes to a retirement home and the sign on the front of the building says "A sad place for helpless old people" and the receptionist asks him if he's "here to abandon an elderly person". So yeah, it's funny, but as long as the atheist stuff isn't too distracting for you. I'd say it's good for starting some interesting conversations about how 'lying' and religion is presented in the film.

News: Rhys Ifans to be Spider-Man's nemesis

The Guardian

Coming across the grapevine of news from Columbia Pictures today is that Rhys Ifans (Greenberg, Pirate Radio), one of my new favorite actors since his hilarious role in Pirate Radio, is the next villain to go up against Spidey in the reboot starring Andrew Garfield (The Social Network). This whole "reboot" thing is may not make much sense and just seems pointless, but I can't help but be way more excited now that Ifans is in it. Last week Emma Stone (Easy A) was confirmed for the role of Gwen Stacy, the girl vying for Peter Parker's affections along with Mary Jane Watson who has yet to be cast. Now that the villain is cast everyone is talking about which villain it will be. According to people who know much more about the Spider Man comics than I do, it'll probably be Lizard since Columbia's report says that Ifans' character has a complex relationship with Parker. I'm not sure how they came to that conclusion, but like I said, I know nothing.

While there have been many rumors circulating around this film, it's good to know someone awesome (along with Garfield) has joined the crew. I'm not sure if it's a good thing that the director is Marc Webb, the guy who brought us (500) Days of Summer. I liked (500) Days of Summer but it doesn't exactly have the same feel as Spider Man, although maybe a bit on the romance side. I don't know. I'm just curious to see what the Lizard looks like if it does turn out to who Ifans is playing because of this picture and many more like it that popped up on Google search. I'm also still confused about whether or not Parker will be just starting college in this movie or if he's finishing high school? I guess I'll have to wait like 2 years to find out.

What I'm Watching: "From Paris with Love"

Europa Corp.

Why I watched it: I've just been in the mood for action movies recently. On top of that, I just wanted to see what John Travolta was like in this. Luc Besson ("The Professional") produced and wrote the story it's based on and Pierre Morel (Taken) directed it. Besson is known for his over-the-top action movies and Morel's "Taken" was fairly enjoyable. So I figured I could count on some entertaining action at least.

What I thought: I was actually surprised. Of course there's not a really detailed plot and you're kind of just thrown into the situation but it doesn't feel too bad. Jonathan Rhys Meyers (apart from having really creepy eyes) is likeable and a decent actor. Travolta's character is ridiculous for sure, but he's obviously supposed to be that way and he's not THAT annoying. And the plot was actually surprisingly entertaining and not terrible. It's not really believable, naturally, but it provides some cool action and things keep moving. The ending is, sadly, the worst part but it's not awful. It's all basically a more tame version of Training Day.

Should YOU see it: I'd say this is another one of those movies that is just fun to watch and could be put in your Netflix cue for some lazy day where you don't feel like doing anything. It's short, moves quickly, and definitely isn't anything unique, but it's better than a lot of stupid action flicks out there.

Review: The Expendables

Millennium  Films

Great face Sylvester Stallone, really looking good. This whole movie is basically how Stallone is gross. Seriously, the guy is 64 years old. Almost old enough to be your grandpa. So basically this is an action movie starring all your grandpas (minus Jason Statham and Jet Li) who used to be cool back in '80's. I mean, look at the man's veins in this picture! So gross.

But enough about how ridiculous these guys are (for now), what about the actual movie? Thanks to the wonders of the interwebs and a friend I family got to see Stallone's action-baby. It was clear from the marketing campaign that Stallone wanted all guys out there to know that this movie was going to be pure MAN. Stallone, Statham, Li, Mickey Rourke, Dolph Lundgren, Randy Couture, Terry Crews, Steve Austin, all a bunch of really buff guys doing nothing but killing people. And that's true, but is that it? This movie seriously had one of the most under-develop plot-lines I have seen for a long time. 

Bruce Willis' character hires Stallone and his men to go take out a dictator-general on the small island of Valena (somewhere in the gulf?). But they soon find out some "Americans" are really controlling the general so they can do awful things like....grow cocoa? No joke, in a scene not too far into the movie we see the head of these Americans in a dirt complaining about how his 'cocoa' trees haven't been planted yet, or whatever. Seriously? Cocoa? I had no idea that all the terrible, brutal dictatorships in the world controlled by greedy Americans were in fact doing something so harmless. Can we at least get fields full of heroine or WMD's? "Sorry, cocoa is all we got" - American guy.

Week's Trailers (tons of them!)

"Blue Valentine"

According to the reviews and news on this one from the festivals, there should be a disclaimer before this trailer explaining how it really isn't as happy as it looks. It's the old story of a young married couple who are having marital issues, believe it or not. They started out so happy and indie but now they're falling apart! Normally this is something to roll your eyes at, but the great buzz surrounding this one gives me hope. Gosling and Williams are very talented actors and definitely two people I can see working together quite well on screen. It seems Williams will never play a part where she's actually happy (see: "Shutter Island", "Wendy and Lucy", "Brokeback Mountain"). However, interesting and frustrating note on this one is that news was released today that the MPAA just gave this an NC-17 rating. What? Really? Usually when a movie gets anything above an R rating there's talk about it beforehand and it's expected. There wasn't any warning for this movie. Apparently it's because of one scene of sexuality with nudity and whatnot. Makes me wonder how bad it can possibly be for the entire movie to garner the dreaded rating. Whatever, the MPAA is dumb, I'll probably still see it.

"The Tempest"

First of all, this is a TERRIBLE trailer in regards to editing and general structure. What the heck is going on? I'm not saying it should give us the entire story but at least a little hint maybe? I know that Mirren's character is intent upon getting revenge on these men for something they did to her daughter. "The Tempest" is not a Shakespeare play I'm familiar with but I do know that the character Mirren plays was originally a man, Prospero, I think his name was. Early reviews on this one from the New York Film Festival are not so swell. Julie Taymor seems to have a good handle on the visuals but little in regards to plot. The trailer does everything in it's power that this movie is all about the spectacle. They even have a Sigur Ros song in the trailer, for goodness sake! How much more artsy can you get!? (note: I LOVE Sigur Ros, this is not a bash on them). Plus, it's a weird cast. Mirren is a great actress, granted, but Russell Brand? Isn't this a bit far from his raunchy comedy? And Chris Cooper? He's one of those actors who appears everywhere but I just find it weird he's not playing a troubled father like usual. I don't know, I don't have much interest in this one.

What I'm Watching: "Blade" the trilogy

In this new line of blogs I'll be highlighting the movie (or movies) I've watched recently as sort of mini-reviews for those of you who wish to expand your home-viewing. Not all will be necessarily 'good' movies since I tend to watch anything I haven't seen. Hopefully these posts will be relatively consistent but since I don't do this for a living like some people and am in school, I can't promise anything.

Why I watched it: The "Blade" movies are one of those things you see part of on TV, you know exist, they look sort of cool, but it still takes you a while to get around to it. I didn't have much hope of a 'good' movie, but thought I'd be entertained by the action and Wesley Snipes being cool. That fact that Guillermo Del Toro directed the second film also sparked my interest and the general consensus of internet-movie buffs accept it as the best of the trilogy.

What I thought: It is what it is. "Blade" is based on a Marvel comic (which I have no familiarity with). From the beginning the tone is established as fun and dark. The first two are considerably gory and very bloody, but what else do you expect from a vampire movie? All the characters are one-dimensional and laughable in most cases. Vampires = sleazy and annoying apart from a few badasses, Humans = unintelligent and dumb, Blade = one cool MF. Snipes cannot act to save his life, but that doesn't mean he's not like-able as the half-vamp half-human vampire hunter. The second film is by far the best with the best screenplay and has the best comic book feel. The third has the worst dialogue and everyone is just annoying except Blade. I just think of Stephen Dorff and his portrayal of the stupid villain who isn't menacing AT ALL when I think of the first one.

Why should You watch it (if at all)?: Blade is cool and there's some pretty fun action. It's nice to watch a movie every now and then that just lets loose with the violence and cheesiness and "Blade" (primarily 1 and 2) is exactly that. The plots are comic-book in nature and don't really come off too well on screen, but they at least give you something to follow through the action. So if you have some free-space on your Netflix cue for some action-fun, I'd say you'll enjoy it alright.      

News/Rumor: Could Spielberg and Dreamworks take on Halo?

The rumor of a possible "Halo" movie has been circulating the internet (and the globe in general) for a number of years now. It's one of those topics that comes up in many conversations about movies I have since people know I know about news and the like. "So when's the Halo movie coming out?" "Uuuuuuuh, it's not. It's complicated." But unlike a lot of projects that get tossed around, half-written, etc, Halo is just too big for studios to ignore for long. And in that lies half the problem.

ABC News

Today I saw on Cinematical that Vulture broke the news that now the legendary "Jurassic", "Indiana Jones" man himself (too much?), Steven Spielberg, is interested in taking on the behemoth with his co-founded company, Dreamworks. Now it really isn't so simple as it sounds. Nothing in the film industry is when you have big studios involved who are quite concerned about money these days (wonder why). As Vulture explains, Halo has gone through a couple of trials already. First, screenwriter Alex Garland ("28 Days Later", "Sunshine") was independently funded to write a screenplay based on the books that was then sent out to 6 major studios. All passed on the daunting project except for Fox and Universal who decided to fund it together and began the very early stages of development. This is when Peter Jackson was hired to produce with newcomer at the time, Neil Blomkamp, came on to direct. However, the project never really took off and millions were being wasted so Fox and Universal dropped and Jackson and Blomkamp went on to make "District 9".

News: Directors for "The Hobbit" and the 4th "Bourne"

It should come as a surprise to no one by now that Peter Jackson will indeed be directing "The Hobbit". I'm not sure it's technically 'official' now since we've known for quite some time that Jackson was trying to get the job and that no one else was being really considered any longer. Still, we can now all rest in peace as The Wrap has reported that negotiations between Jackson and MGM are winding down. And supposedly the first part of "The Hobbit" (because it's split into two movies) has a planned release of December 19, 2012, and it'll be in 3D (of course). But the problem of MGM's bankruptcy is still getting in the way which is the reason why the "James Bond" movies haven't continued either. MGM owns half the rights to Tolkien's movies along with Warner Bros.'s New Line Cinemas and they're still trying to decide if a production cost of $400 million for both movies is a wise thing to do. 

I'd say heck yes it is. Do they even remember what happened with this little trilogy called THE LORD OF THE RINGS?? I'm thinking these two movies can easily earn back the $400 million and much more without too much trouble; especially with the added expense of 3D ticket costs. So sadly, our mission of hoping and praying for "The Hobbit" to finally get underway is not over yet, but we can now rest assured that Jackson is out there fighting to get it to us.

Today is just filled with exciting news about directors. I should've just waite for these two stories to arrive before posting the last one about Zack Snyder....oh well. Now you're getting the news that Tony Gilroy, the director of "Michael Clayton", has be granted the rights to direct the 4th Jason Bourne film. It's been three years since "The Bourne Ultimatum" and the temporary halt to the extremely popular and exciting series, and I think it's about time we got some more. 

The plot of "The Bourne Legacy", the 4th book by Robert Ludlum, is described like this on Amazon.com: "David Webb, a mild-mannered Georgetown professor, harbors his old Bourne identity deep within his psyche—except in moments of danger. A mysterious assassin, Khan, has targeted Webb." The summary goes on to reveal more information that is a bit too spoiler-ish so I'll just leave that out, but you get the idea. In my opinion, Gilroy is the perfect choice for this film. "Michael Clayton" was a fantastic movie and basically 'business' thriller. There was no gun fights or cool hand to hand combat like the Bourne movies but it was almost just as intense without it. Simply put, Gilroy knows how to handle intensity and have a smart, intricate plot to back it up. Let's all hope Matt Damon will reprise his role (I'm fairly certain he will) and that we all get to see Bourne back in action fairly soon.

News: new "Superman" director = Zack Snyder?

Info Addict

A mere second or two after opening the Cinematical homepage, I see this headline about Zack Snyder, the director of "300", "Watchmen", and "The Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hool". And if the phrase "wtf" passed through your head at the owls movie, have no fear, you are NOT alone. It's hard to believe Snyder could make a kids movie about owls without having these said owls fly around shirtless with ripped bodies causing gratuitous violence (and sex) to abound everywhere. 

But that's beside the point which is REALLY?! I don't understand the obsession with Snyder and his slow-mo green-screen action/violence. OK, so it was sort of cool at first in "300" before you realized 'hey, this movie is racist, homoerotic, historically inaccurate, and generally terrible'. Then came "Watchmen" and you realized 'this movie sucks!' without much thought at all. There are some movie buffs out there who just love the creative, visual side of his movies. But that really isn't enough to cover for the poor dialogue, acting, and everything else in his movies. And now Warner Bros. wants him to tackle The Man of Steel?

According to Cinematical, Christopher Nolan was involved with choosing the director which makes me wonder why such an awesome director would pick Snyder? Someone as skilled as Nolan should no doubt realize Snyder's innate weaknesses thus far. Alas, it appears that didn't stop him, and now Snyder gets to take over an idea that Nolan and writer David S. Goyer ("Blade I, II, III", "The Dark Knight") came up with. A re-boot to the "Superman" franchise has been in the cooking pot ever since Bryan Singer's attempt with star Brandon Routh back in 2006 failed to garner any applause from critics across the map. And now with an idea for a script and a director on board, it looks as if another attempt will be made, and while I'm not the biggest fan of Snyder, I hope things can turn out alright. Now we just have to wait for casting news regarding the Superman himself, Lois Lane, and whoever the villain will be.  

Review: The Social Network

Overture Films

"The Social Network" is a big movie. It's garnering four-star and 10/10 reviews from all across the board. Some call it the "film of the century" or the "Citizen Kane of our time". They're all wildly positive and even going as far as to say it "defines our generation". Now I try to steer away from sweeping opinions like "best of the century" when talking about any movie. In fact, I believe it's hard to give the majority of movies a place in the 'best of all time' scale based on your opinion only. Personal opinion only goes so far and there are many situations where one is simply wrong about a movie when you can't come up with sufficient reasons as to why it's bad or good or if the rest of the world generally disagrees with you. 

So although I will not make a single, colossal statement, I will make a comparison. I have to say that "The Social Network" is the "Inception" of the drama genre so far this year. Every major feature of this movie is practically flawless. David Fincher ("Fight Club", "Seven") is a master director and sees to it that everything flows seamlessly together. The editing is quick and expertly paced and doesn't let up for one moment with the plot. It's quite possible for a movie like this to linger and try to draw the most from certain situations and/or characters. Here, each scene serves it's part and then we move on. Coupled with the cinematography and surprisingly good, electronic-ish soundtrack, the pacing and layout of the film is astounding.

Review: Let Me In

Overture Films

I am fairly confident that I'm not wrong in assuming that most of American audiences will see the trailers for "Let Me In" and shrug it off as another dumb vampire movie attempting to revive the spirit of this genre that "Twilight" has so mercilessly tarnished. And there have been many to support this feeling such as "30 Days of Night" and "Daybreakers" (although I know many horror buffs seriously disagree). I myself was tired of these trends that just got more and more creature-like and tried to draw their appeal from having the most shocking gore or vampire design/makeup. But my reaction to the news that Matt Reeves (director of "Cloverfield") was working on getting a remake of this movie going, I was intrigued and a bit skeptical.

Because as most Americans DO NOT know, "Let Me In" was originally a book that was adapted into "Let the Right One In", a Swedish film that came out back in 2008. The original became an instant favorite and marvel among film buffs in the US and abroad, but still unknown to a wider audience. I saw it before news of Reeves' remake plans and was surprised to find something that was definitely different than any other vampire movie. It has a mysterious heart to it with the relationship between the young boy and girl but also a darker, horror side in regards to the girls' secret (yes, she's also a vampire). 

Initially there was a huge outcry among film nerds when Reeves' announced "Let Me In", but I remained curious. And while Reeves promised in interviews to not disregard the first movie and stick to the book, I found "Let Me In" to be almost a complete copy of the Swedish version. It's really hard to go about reviewing this movie having seen the first one. I knew literally everything that was going to happen. I was almost bored because of the lack of surprise. There's no doubt this would be a completely different review if I hadn't seen "Let the Right One In". But as it stands, there's not much difference between the two, but I will say there's a few key differences and things that both could have benefited from.

News (that I care about): a potential "Great Gatsby" cast

While doing my routinely check on Cinematical for movie news, I saw this news about a possible remake of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby". It's a book that has constantly been used to define "the American Dream" and a portion of high school English class. In other words, it's a classic in all sense of the word and definitely one of my favorite books I read in high school. It has been made into a film twice before, once in 1926 and then again in 1974 with Robert Redford and Mia Farrow and written by Francis Ford Coppola.

Now the news is that Baz Luhrmaan ("Romeo + Juliet", "Moulin Rouge!", "Australia") is seeking to direct with a rumored cast of Leonardo Dicaprio (because he's in everything), Toby Maguire, and Amanda Seyfried. Obviously, Dicaprio  would be playing the titular Jay Gatsby while Maguire is the shy but curious Nick and Seyfried is the ditsy, naive Daisy.

It's a big stretch to see a guy like Luhrmaan take on a classic that is a clean cut drama with not many quirks. If you are familiar at all with Luhrmaan's movies, you know he has a lot of quirky moments with characters that are just so odd and weird and demonstrate the kind of behavior you'd expect from the drama kids at your high school."Gatsby" is really nothing like that. I can see all the actors fitting into their roles. We all know Dicaprio can be classy but also very anxious/angry/desperate which fits well for Gatsby. Maguire can do the shy but well meaning as seen in a little movie called "Spiderman". I'm not too familar with Seyfried although I'd say she could definitely look the part of a rich, air-head blond from the1920's with a little makeup and costume change.

But Luhrmaan? Definitely not my first choice. I'd say Sam Mendes who's definitely shown he can do period pieces well with "Road to Perdition" and "Revolutionary Road". Each also shows his great sense of drama from the subtle to the extreme. I guess we'll just have to see about this since it's still a "rumor", but I wouldn't mind seeing an updated version of this.

Week's Trailers: "True Grit" (nothing else really matters)

"True Grit"

I was ecstatic when I first heard that Joel and Ethan Coen were working on a revised version of the 1969 John Wayne Western of the same name. According to them, this film will follow the original book more closely, and I have no doubt it'll be a very different movie in all respects. It's Jeff Bridges' first collaboration with the Coens since his run as 'The Dude' in "The Big Lebowski", and boy does he look great! I still have fond memories of Wayne as the one-eyed Rooster Cogburn, and Bridges' grizzled figure is pretty close to it except with the addition of the beard. It'll no doubt be much more violent and dark than the original. The major question is will it be a true Western in the style and feel of the old days? Will it be something new like what the Coens did with "No Country for Old Men" and it's cold, quiet and remorseless evil and violence? Or will it take a more moving and contemplative route like Andrew Dominik's amazing "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford"? I doubt it'll one or the other. Most likely a mixture of the old with the new. I have a feeling the Coens will definitely want to do homage to the classic Western which is evidenced by the glimpses we get of the horse-back shootout in the trailer. What struck me the most about this trailer though was the music. It definitely has a bit of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" to it but also a more dark and mournful tone like much of "Cold Mountain"'s score. Carter Burwell, who scored "Burn After Reading", "A Serious Man", and a few other Coen movies, is handling this one. According to a few interviews I've read onlin, Burwell is trying to form most of the music from old Protestant hymns to highlight Mattie Ross' (Hailee Steinfeld) religious devotion in the movie. However, he says he's having trouble because most of the hymns are too lighthearted. That's just another signal that this long-awaited Western from the Coens will be dark, gritty, and probably a guaranteed contender for Oscar nominations all around.

(now on to the boring stuff)