Top 10 of '10

And here it is, the inevitable end of the year list. But before I lay it out for you, it's time for a bit of reflection. This 'reflection' is mostly remembering how terrible this year's summer lineup was. 'Robin Hood', 'Prince of Persia', 'Iron Man 2', 'The Last Airbender', 'Clash of the Titans', 'Jonah Hex', just to name a few. Not to mention the drastic switch to 3D that took theaters by storm this year. And with all these movies converting to 3D, none (besides 'Tron', to a degree) have made the movie any better. The only case in which 3D worked was with 'Avatar', but it costs a whole lot more to get the multiple cameras and other equipment necessary to make a movie with 'Avatar' 3D. It makes me wonder if this cheap, 3D conversion will be able to entertain audiences for very much longer. All this said, the late Fall and Winter still brought a handful of future Oscar nominees and award winners from which I have selected the majority of my top 10. So here we go:

10. 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I'

Warner Bros.

I think the majority of Potter fans can agree that the latest addition to the mega-blockbuster series is the best of the lot, so far. In 'Hallows' we get to see the characters as actual people like we've never seen them before. Instead of blinding and distracting the audience with unending magic and special effects, this film focused on the people and built on their personal struggles more than any of the other films. Not to mention it successfully brought on the darkness and creepiness needed to do the book justice. This is undoubtedly the best adaptation of the books so far and I can't wait for the sequel coming next Summer.

9. 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World'

Universal Pictures

One of the most underrated movies of the year, 'Scott Pilgrim vs. The World' unites Michael Cera and a fabulous supporting cast with Edgar Wright, director of 'Hot Fuzz' and 'Shaun of the Dead' for a highly entertaining, hilarious adaptation of a comic series of the same name. It's hard to say why this film did so poorly at the box office considering the presence of Cera, the comic's following, and Wright's fan club. Still, it's out there on DVD now, and I feel very confident that anyone would enjoy it's surprisingly fun, cool action and Wright's masterful editing style and quirky, sarcastic comedy that blends perfectly with the comic book-ish style.

Review: The King's Speech

The Weinstein Company

Isn't this a great picture? Love it. And it sets the tone for much of the movie. British actor Colin Firth plays Albert, the Duke of York (I think?) who inevitably becomes King George VI, as you can tell from the title. But with the dawn of technology such as radio and all that jazz, Kings are now expected to speak more in public and make broadcasts instead of just looking nice in a royal outfit. The only problem is 'Berty' (as his family calls him) has a terrible impediment of stuttering. He's seen all the greatest physicians but nothing has worked and he's frustrated to no end. "But he hasn't seen me", as Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) tells Berty's sweet wife, Queen Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter).

Right, the board is set, the plot and it's struggle is clearly defined. Overall, it's a very simple movie. 'The King's Speech' has been advertised as that hifalutin (love that word), soaring, over dramatic, inevitable Oscar winner. But it's really nothing of the sort. It's quite modest, in fact. This has been the case with a number of critically acclaimed movies this year. Like 'True Grit', '127 Hours', 'The Fighter', and a number of others, there's nothing very outgoing or unusual about any of them. They're all solid movies in their own right, but not much more. 'Speech' is by no means left out.

Review: True Grit

Paramount Pictures

When the first trailer for this remake of the 1969 film starring John Wayne first premiered online, I had one question: how would the notorious directing duo Joel and Ethan Coen ('Fargo', 'No Country for Old Men', and many others) handle the style of a Western? Would they go for a more modern take similar to what they did with 'No Country'? Would it be a traditional Western? Or something in-between? Because as many of you may know, the Coens are not exactly known for normal movies. Everything they make has a signature quirk, and often darkness, to it. In my mind a remake that brought out the darkness and grisly violence of an old Western sounded promising. 

But when it came down to seeing it last night at midnight, I had to remind myself that expectations are everything. And in this case, I think expectations will rule your opinion of the Coen's take on 'True Grit' that ended up being a very traditional, comedic, even somewhat family-friendly Western that hearkens back to the days of John Wayne.

Review: The Fighter

Paramount Pictures

So many people groan at the phrase "based on a true story." I must admit, most of the time, it isn't a very good sign. It's a way for studios to try and attract a certain crowd who likes to know exactly what they're going to get. The biographies tend to be on the darker side and show the main character going through lots of tough times (and drugs) but usually coming back on top at the end. 90% of the time, "true story" means a crowd pleasing, happy ending for everyone.

And the most tried and true formula for this sort of story is the always popular, recurring sports drama. I have to say right here that I absolutely detest football, and most major-league sports films. 'Remember the Titans' is the only one I'll admit to liking. Other than that, I refuse. Sorry. Anyway, now boxing films, look no further than 'Rocky' for the epitome of a boxing movie. Then there's 'Cinderella Man', the Ron Howard directed 'true story' (again!) of a boxer during the depression played by Russell Crowe. I for one really enjoyed 'Cinderella Man' even though it's highly melodramatic, especially at the end. But 'The Fighter', is it just as formulaic and ho-hum as its many counter-parts?

Review: The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Twentieth Century Fox

The 'Chronicles of Narnia' is a sad tale of the woes of poor-box office showings. 'The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe', the first of the C.S. Lewis series, had an opening weekend of $65.5 million and a total gross of nearly $292 million in the US. It was an impressive opening and seemed to be the beginning of better things to come and received mostly positive reviews, earning a 76% on Rotten Tomatoes. 'Prince Caspian', the second in the series, made $55 million opening weekend and a total gross of $141.6 million in the US while the total budget was $225 million. It was a fairly major upset, to say the least, and the 67% on RT didn't help either. It was at this point, when things were getting ready to go on 'Dawn Treader' that Disney dropped the series. For a while, it seemed Narnia could be lost forever. Then Fox picked it back up and fans breathed easy once again.

However, 'Dawn Treader' only made $24 million opening weekend. That's less than half of what 'Prince Caspian' made opening weekend, the movie that started the trouble for the franchise in the first place. To top it all off, 'Dawn Treader' has 49% on RT. It really is a very sad state of affairs, especially for me and families like mine who grew up reading the series and I for one think 'The Silver Chair', the next book, is the best of the lot. So what happened to Narnia? Why can't a PG rated, fantasy-action, family friendly movie draw an audience during a time of year when people are willing to see any movie for an excuse to get out and do something?

Review: Tron: Legacy

Walt Disney Pictures

What I find most fascinating about this movie and all it stands for is its marketing campaign. Who (besides some 30-year old cult fans) knows what 'Tron' even is? A nearly 30-year old live-action Disney movie with tacky special effects and an absurdly vague plot that wasn't even that popular. Hardly anyone in my generation has seen 'Tron' and if they think they know anything about it, they say it's about people playing inside a video game. But any of those 30-year old cult fans know that's not the entire story. Seriously, watch the old movie, it doesn't even bother trying to explain anything beyond the fact that Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) has to beat this computer or something and win back his company, Encom, from some bad dude who stole it from him. It's a strangely dark and cerebral movie that wouldn't make sense to any kid these days.

So why the PG rating and acting like the first 'Tron' was a big deal when it wasn't? I actually took the time to watch the original with some friends for the sake of seeing 'Legacy' and maybe understanding it. But after seeing 'Legacy', I now understand that the first one really doesn't matter at all. All you need to know and can possibly understand is explained and anything else, like the original, is tossed out there as a bunch of mumbo-jumbo that doesn't make any sense, but none of that matters. This 'Tron' is so slick and dazzling that you could care less what the heck these Iso people are.

Review: 127 Hours

Fox Searchlight Pictures

Let's face it, everyone knows what's going to happen at the end of this movie. We've all heard the story of climber/biker/outdoors adventurer Aron Ralston (played by James Franco) at least once and know the guy got his arm stuck under a rock and after the amount of hours mentioned in the title finally decides to cut his arm off. Now how many of us can seriously say we'd be able to do that? The man had to first break his arm in such a way as to be sure the bone was completely broken in half because there was no way his completely dull knife was going to be able to cut through bone. He then proceeds to hack and saw away through tendons and at one point snipping the main nerve that runs through his arm *barf*. 

Knowing all this, why would seeing a movie recounting this horrific event sound appealing at all? For one, director Danny Boyle ('Slumdog Millionaire', '28 Days Later', 'Trainspotting') can do no wrong (most of the time). Secondly, seeing exactly how one would go about making a 94 minute film out of this was what got me to see it. It's one of those cases where one actor (Franco) has to entertain an audience and keep the story going all on his lonesome. 

Review: Black Swan

Fox Searchlight Pictures

I really like this picture. What does it tell us? That Natalie Portman is scary, yes, but also that this is more than a psychological thriller. 'Black Swan' is totally a horror movie. It sounds weird to say it because you naturally think of slashers and blood and guts, but trust me, this movie is far more unsettling and intense than any slasher film out there.

If you know anything about director Darren Aronofsky ('Requiem for a Dream', 'The Fountain', 'The Wrestler'), you know you're in for something that will most likely be dark and disturbing, but also highly stimulating. The cinematography was fantastic. I know many people think hand-held camera is a 'cop out' or overdone but it worked perfectly here; especially for capturing the dance scenes and Nina's (Portman) increasingly frantic state. In nearly every scene I braced myself for what jarring thing would happen next. This is primarily because of the fantastic story which follows Nina, a very talented but not very self-confident ballerina who tries out for and gets the part of the Swan Queen in the famous ballet Swan Lake. The instructor, Thomas (brilliantly played by creepy but commanding Vincent Cassel), applauds her portrayal of the Queen but keeps driving her on to be able to do the evil twin, the Black Swan, justice.

Review: The Tourist

Spyglass Entertainment

If you think this photo looks like something you might see in an advertisement for a travel agency, you're not alone. This entire film might as well be an advertisement for Italy (Venice, primarily). That said, it's rather lovely to watch at times because Angelina Jolie keeps up a track record of always looking "ravenous" (as Johnny Depp's character Frank puts it) against a backdrop of romantic canals, old buildings, and smashing lighting. Now THAT SAID, what else is there?

Not much. For one thing, Depp's character is very bland. Although some may argue that's done on purpose because he's suppose to be this 'normal' guy thrown into the middle of espionage and a case to bring a notorious money-launderer, Alexander Pierce, to justice. So why pick Depp to play a 'normal' person? Because as we all know, Depp never plays a 'normal' person, and seeing him attempt to do so doesn't feel very real. It's not that his acting isn't good, it's just that I wanted to see more from him. And as I said before, Jolie's Elise fulfills her purpose as the gorgeous, mysterious woman (and obvious love-interest for Depp). 

Review: The Warrior's Way

Relativity Media

The real question about this movie (which doesn't need any explanation with this picture: cowboys vs. ninjas, the end), is WHY did I see it? Even more, WHY am I even writing a review for a movie no one is going to see except for two awkward businessmen sitting behind us? Because I can.

Which is the same reason why I saw it in the first place. It also seems to be the same reason the studio used to justify making such a movie. I can't imagine how the writer walked up to the producers with this script and they were like "great! this will be awesome!" It probably has something to do with the director having a name no one can pronounce (Sngmoo?). Therefore, it must be another "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Like every other Asian-martial arts movie out there. But not every Asian-martial arts movie out there is shot entirely on green-screen.

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

Warner Bros.

This is the first Harry Potter movie I have seen where I knew exactly what was going to happen. Reason? I finally read all of the books about a year ago which probably seems like a crime to some of you that I hadn't read them till then. And I am by no means a die-hard Potter fan, even though I saw it at midnight and again today. So although I did enjoy the books quite a lot,  I feel like I'm in a good position to judge whether the changes made for the story on screen were necessary and worked. Because as many people DON'T understand and refuse to accept, adaptations NEED to be changed for the screen. There are some things you just can't translate from the page to film. People just can't seem to get that through their head...

That said, I think this is the best movie AND adaptation of the entire series so far. A major reason behind this being that David Yates, director of the Goblet of Fire and the rest of the films to date, has obviously found the environment and type of story in the HP series that fits his style best. From the Goblet of Fire on it became more and more clear that Yates was trying to make the Wizarding world something real that didn't rely on the tricks of special effects and interesting/crazy magic a means to attract an audience. Of course, an audience was going to come no matter what, and that audience expected the Potter world to come alive. But how? I think Yates' Deathly Hallows captures the reality of the 7th book and a vision that focuses more on the characters and their relationships/struggles more than any other movie. The magic and sparse effects only serve as entertainment on the side that fun to watch, but it's not the focus like it was in the other movies. 

Week's Trailers

Battle: Los Angeles

Say what you want about alien invasion movies (and 'Skyline's miserable 15% on Rottentomatoes), this is a damn good trailer. It's been a long time since I've seen something so well crafted. Of course, from the start with the old photos of possible alien spacecraft and other glimpses at the end, we can tell its aliens. What I like about it though is that the carnage and action almost look like it could be any full scale war movie and not necessarily aliens. Yeah, the epic alien spacecraft and stuff we see in trailers like the one for 'Skyline' (can you tell I'm bitter than it's terrible) is in your face and telling you "ALIENS! BE EXCITED!", but this is something totally different. And the fact that we get no look at any prominent actors such as Aaron Eckhart or Michelle Rodriguez can either be a good thing or a bad thing...that either the studio doesn't think showing famous actors will help gain attention or that they're banking on the spectacle doing the job. I'm hoping Eckhart and Rodriguez and the rest of the cast will do their best but not try to take on the whole focus which seems to be a major weakness of 'Skyline' according to the critics; apparently they spent too much time trying to develop dumb, pointless characters. But no matter how the actual movie turns out to be, this trailer is seriously awesome.

The Chronicles of Narnie: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (trailer #2)

If anything this trailer tells us that every movie trailer needs a kraken! Or whatever that giant sea creature is. And it doesn't hurt to throw in some dragons, minotaurs, glowing ladies, and bouncing hobbits. I just love how this looks like a mash up of every fantasy movie out there (which Narnia pretty much is even though it came before a lot of those fantasy things). Even though I wasn't too fond of the first two films (although the 2nd one was better) I do hope this manages to scrape in enough cash to make another film because I reaaaallly want to see another version of The Silver Chair which is definitely the best book IMO because of Puddleglum. And the perfect, and I mean PERFECT, person to play Puddlegulm is Bill Nighy, obviously. Anyway, my initial reaction to both trailers so far is just 'ho hum'. I really wish I could like it more, but like I said, it just looks like everything else.

(there's a 3rd trailer for Tron: Legacy if anyone isn't excited enough already, I refuse to use up any more of my time on posting all their darn trailers)

Last Night

What I gathered from this is that the conflict is as follows: Keira Knightley trying to decide "which accent do I like better?" Well, maybe it isn't as simple as that, but it's nice to see Sam Worthington trying something where he's not a mute action hero! But sadly, by the looks of this, I'm not sure if it's working out so well for him. All he's got is that accent really...the French guy (Guillermot, or whatever his name is) seems to be beating him in the charisma (personality) category. I just like how this looks like a fairly serious movie with real issues and stuff and they have this upbeat, rock music playing over it that sends the "this summer, get ready for the romantic, feel-good movie of the year!" message. I'm not sure that's how this is gonna go...Whatever, it makes me yawn.

Kung Fu Panda 2 (teaser)

Question: does Jack Black matter any more? Obviously, making a sequel to a movie that made a bunch of $$$$ because it was PG is banking on the fact that it'll make a bunch of $$$$ again, because it's PG. I seriously get so tired of this marketing ploy that works EVERY FRICKEN TIME. No matter what. *sigh*

Well I think there's actually a few other trailers (like 2?) that came out this week (including another Winnie the Pooh movie made with the old style animation!) that I don't care much about. Not that I care about Kung Fu Panda 2, I just wanted to make you suffer. Ha.

News: Big names join Wes Anderson's 'Moon Rise Kingdom'

Variety

So I've been super lazy about posting anything lately, and there have been a few things I could've blogged about, but they just weren't important enough. Now this piece of news, which surfaced as a rumor a few days ago, is now apparently official. Deadline reports that Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray (duh), Frances McDormand, and Tilda Swinton have joined the cast of Wes Anderson's next project titled 'Moon Rise Kingdom' which is currently scheduled for a 2012 release date yet to be announced. So is this a dream team or what? Willis is definitely a surprise, but until we know more about what character he's going to be playing it's hard to pass any judgment yet. I for one think he could be quite interesting and entertaining in an Anderson creation. Here's the plotline as described by Deadline:

"set in the 60s. Two young adults fall in love and run away. Leaders in their New England town are sticking the idea that they've disappeared and go in search of them. Norton will play a scout leader who brings his charges on a search. Willis is in talks to play the town sheriff who’s also looking, and who is having an affair with the missing girl’s mother, the role McDormand is in talks to play. Murray, a regular in Anderson films, will play the girl's father, who has his own issues."

Maybe it's just the presence of McDormand and Swinton that makes me think this, but this seems like it could easily be the plot for a Coen Bros. film. Good news is its written by Anderson and Roman Coppola who also co-wrote The Darjeeling Limited. Well I'm intrigued and excited and will be eagerly awaiting any more news.

Week's Trailers: Complete Chaos

Blitz

It seems to me that Jason Statham is at his best when he's NOT in an American movie. And when he is he's only used for his steely glare and action moves. That isn't to say that he won't be primarily do just that in this new movie, but I do believe it means we can expect a movie with a bit more substance than say, The Expendables. I think this looks pretty sweet and the supporting cast looks good as well which gives me hope that the plot might be just as strong. Crossing my fingers!

Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale

Now this would be the oddball of the group for this week's trailers, and I'm quite intrigued while still remaining a bit freaked out. That shot of Santa hanging all tied up was very creepy indeed. It hearkens back to that old Weird Al song about "The Night Santa Went Crazy", you old school kids know what I'm talking about. Anyway, it's always been an interesting, funny thought: what if Santa was not the fat, jolly 'ol guy we're so fond of but a mysterious, ruthless being? I'm hoping this will be as dark as the trailer makes it out to be and it will actually be pretty brutal. I like it.

What I'm Watching: "Juice"

Paramount Pictures

Why I watched it: Special shout-out here to my friend Claude who let me borrow this because he felt it was a crime that I hadn't seen this incredibly famous work featuring the renowned Tupac Shakur and a supporting cast including Omar Epps. I'd heard of it before but didn't know much save that Samuel L. Jackson had some role in it (even though it's a small one) because Dave Chappelle mentions it in his skit of "Samuel Jackson Beer". So 'Juice' was never really a movie high on my list (sorry Claude), BUT I had the chance to see it, so why not?

What I thought: It's not that bad. It definitely has a different vibe because it's from the early '90's and operates within that culture, but it's still easy to get into. I do wish it would've been a bit more serious and dark. Although it does get kind of dark towards the end, the content and plot devices would've come across a lot more effective if things would've been grittier and more 'on the edge'. Because it lacks a bit in this department, it comes off feeling just a bit silly at times, and it doesn't help that the entire cast isn't that strong. Tupac and Epps do a pretty good job (especially 'Pac), but they can't hold up the entire movie.

Should YOU watch it: If you're an old time 'Pac fan, definitely see it, and if you enjoy '90's movies with this sort of laid back, urban vibe then I'd say you'll enjoy it too. But if it's a more engaging and intense 'in da' hood' (see what I did there? I'm a gangster, yo) story and action you're looking, this may just not cut it.

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.