Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > May
May 2008
Sex and the City: A he said/she said review
When would a man ever find it awkward to be surrounded by hundreds of women? When he’s at the premiere of the Sex and the City movie.
To gain a better sense of perspective (and because I like to be a nice guy), I invited two of my colleagues who are ardent Sex and the City fans to see the movie with me. While they pored over an Entertainment Weekly spread of male SATC costars, I played my own game of “spot the guy,” counting about a dozen males in the audience.
Thankfully, the movie made me glad to be there, even if it did wear out its welcome with a running time of nearly two and a half hours. Fans will be pleased that the spirit of the show is very much intact, but that’s one of the movie’s problems: it’s too much like the TV show.
I know very well this movie was made to please the fans, but even so, when a TV show moves to the movie theater, filmmakers should heighten the experience.Writer-director Michael Patrick King didn’t go far enough in this regard, making essentially a Very Special Episode that happens to play on a very big screen.
Some people will say that the movie is like a 2.5 hour episode, but I thought it felt more like five 30-minute episodes that had been inelegantly jammed together. Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) prepares for her nuptials with Mr. Big (Chris Noth). Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) endures marriage difficulties. The randy Samantha (Kim Cattrall) finds herself questioning her new life in Los Angeles managing the career of actor-boyfriend Jerry “Smith” Jerrod. Charlotte (Kristin Davis) is the most content of the bunch, settled into her Park Avenue life with husband Harry and their adopted daughter, Lily, when she gets a long-desired surprise.
I most enjoyed Carrie and Miranda’s stories, which had the most dramatic weight. It helped that their plotlines, about their men making colossal mistakes, intertwined. It helped even more that I related to these stories, because I’ve been that guy who’s screwed up and was desperate to be forgiven.
Charlotte’s and Samantha’s stories felt isolated and not nearly as compelling. Another disappointment was Jennifer Hudson (Dreamgirls) who plays a new PA for Carrie. Her performance is OK, but her character was so thinly written it felt like padding in a film that already has too much bloat.
What held the movie together, though, is what propelled the TV show more than anything else: the electric chemistry between the four leads. They’re always fun to watch, especially when all four share a scene. Parker is particularly good, turning in what may be her best performance on a screen of any size. If open-minded men get dragged to this, they just might come out not wanting to slit their wrists.
My Grade: B
Although I am not anti-Sex and the City and I don’t retch at chick flicks, I recognize that Sex and the City has a very specific audience that I don’t exactly fall into. So I thought it only fair to let my SATC-loving co-workers, Meagan Engle and Megan Gildow, offer their take:
Just a day after seeing the movie, we both found ourselves wanting to see it again or wishing it was already out on DVD (to accompany the six seasons already in our cache.)
The best part of the movie is just seeing the four friends again. It’s like a reunion for serious fans of the show. The four leading ladies’ chemistry remains fabulously intact and really, that’s what made us all love the series in the first place, not the veritable revolving door of men or the outrageous conversations.
While Sir Critic is certainly right that Carrie and Miranda’s stories were more dramatic, true fans of the show will be pleased with the plot lines for Charlotte and Samantha as well.
As for the length, we didn’t find it to be an issue - even after spending half an hour wishing someone would stab premiere footage host Steven Cocojaru with a sharp stiletto and put us out of our misery. But once the opening bars of the theme song started to play and we were absolutely sure it wasn’t a ringtone false alarm, our hearts started to sing along.
The only problem we had with the movie was the addition of minor character Louise, portrayed by Jennifer Hudson. She seemed to serve very little purpose to the plot and in the hey-dey of the show, her role in Carrie’s emotional well-being would definitely have been filled by Charlotte, Miranda or Samantha or even all three.
If you are a fan of the show, you won’t be disappointed.
Our grade: A+
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
I love you, but your taste in movies …
All this hype about women going to the Sex and the City movie in droves (and men staying away in droves) got me thinking about the movies that divide us. Most of us have movies we love, but our loved ones hate them - or we have movies we hate that are loved by our loved ones.
So let me ask you - what movies make your significant other flee from the room with a grimace? Or what movies make you decide you’ll go out while they’re busy watching their movie?
Responses don’t have to be “I like chick flicks and hate action movies” or vice versa, though those examples are certainly welcome. These can be movies your kids watch to the point of exasperation, or movies you try to understand but simply don’t get.
Truthfully, I can’t give a great answer my own question because I have neither kids, nor much in the way of significant others. But here are a random handful of movies that I love that usually prompt responses of “You LIKED that? Really??”
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Punch-Drunk Love
The Star Wars prequels
Pretty much anything directed by Stanley Kubrick
Your turn!
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Sex and the City-a-phobia
So I went to the Sex and City screening last night, and let me tell you, I could not wait to get out of there. I slumped in my seat, wishing I could be anywhere else. I felt like someone had taken the world’s sharpest pair of high heels, jammed one of them into my eye, and the other one into my ear.
And that was before the movie started.
Now let me clear the air about one thing immediately. I am not your stereotypical chick-flick, Sex and the City-hating male. I’m not a fan, but all that means is that I’m not a TV watcher, so I never made a point of sitting down to see the show. I happened to randomly catch about a dozen episodes over the years. And the ones I saw I liked.
At the screening, however, someone came up with the masterstroke of playing footage of the red carpet premiere in New York before the film. Sounds like a good idea in principle, right?
Good LORD no! Not when your host is the insufferable fashionista Steven Cojocaru, who now gets my vote as the most annoying person alive. And it went on for 30 centuries! Uh, I mean, minutes! It was enough to make me wish for the debonair flair of Billy Bush.
All throughout this footage, I kept distracting myself by imagining ways to put Cojocaru out of everyone’s misery. Images of piranhas, wild horses attached to each of the man’s limbs and a tank filled with sulfuric acid danced through my head.
And to add injury to insult, it turns out that the screening was held at 8:30 p.m. instead of the customary 7:30 p.m. specifically to accommodate that premiere. I submit my receipt for 30 wasted minutes of my life I’d like to have back - with interest. I’m sure lots of people just loved getting home around midnight on a work night.
But what about the movie, you might ask?
Well, I’m not allowed to say just yet. All I will allow for now is that the movie is much better. (A big help, I know.) But the two rabid SATC fans I was with were pleased - they will review the film along with me on Friday. And for the record, they too,agreed with me that the red carpet footage was a total buzzkill. One of them said she never thought she’d be unhappy being at the Sex and the City premiere, but she was.
So let me ask you: What are you hoping for from a Sex and the City movie? Does a two and a half hour running time worry you? I’m particularly interested in hearing from A) Men who actually like Sex and the City or B) Women who don’t. I know some of you are out there … aren’t you?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Indy vs. Narnia vs. Iron Man
Looking at the box office and the public opinion of these three big summer movies so far, I notice some surprising developments.
1) Iron Man beats Indy in audience polls: Pretty much everyone knew that the new Indiana Jones movie would be a box office bonanza this weekend. What everyone didn’t expect was that the movie would fall a little bit flat with moviegoers. The film earned a solid but unspectacular B from audiences polled by CinemaScore. Typically, you need a B+ or higher to have good “legs” at the box office, like Iron Man has.
My prediction is that Indy will fall off faster than expected, becoming a circa $300 million “disappointment” like Attack of the Clones - never mind that Crystal Skull made back all its money in worldwide grosses this weekend. Ultimately, though, Iron Man is the better liked movie. (I don’t quite agree. More on that below)
2) Narnia underperforms: Here’s the movie performance that’s harder to figure out. To begin with, Prince Caspian opened with $56 million - not bad at all, but that’s about $10 million less than the first movie, and sequels usually open better than their predecessors. To make it all the more confusing, the CinemaScore of the movie is an A-, which indicates people like it pretty well, but for some reason, the sequel took a big drop in its second weekend.
I think that reason is that Indy played more like a family movie than many people thought it would. People my age (mid-30s) were taking their kids to show them what they grew up on. If I were Disney, though. I’d move the third Narnia movie, Voyage of the Dawn Treader, out of summer post haste, and save it for the 2010 holiday season.
Now, some questions for you guys:
What did you think of the new Indy movie? My review is here. I saw WAY too many non-critic reviews that said “It wasn’t as good as Raiders.” Ummmm - you mean you expected it to be? Personally, I liked Indy and Iron Man about the same - both are extremely entertaining, with terrific performances by the leading men - but both movies have significant flaws. I’d give Indy the edge because I think Iron Man’s weak villain hurts that film more than Crystal Skull’s sci-fi climax hurts Spielberg’s latest.
And what about the new Narnia? Have you seen it? If not, why not? Are you interested in seeing more?
PS In case you missed it, my tribute to the late Sydney Pollack can be read here.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Oscar-winning director Sydney Pollack dies
The holiday weekend ended on a very sad note with the passing of Sydney Pollack, the Oscar-winning director of such films as Tootsie, Out of Africa (which got him the Academy’s prize), The Way We Were, The Firm, Three Days of the Condor, and many more. The director had been suffering from cancer.
Pollack’s name may not be very well known to rank and file audiences, partly because he had never been a visual stylist like a Spielberg, Scorsese or a Coen. But, as many have pointed out, the special thing about all his movies was that they never played the audience for fools. Even less-than-great movies like his Sabrina remake couldn’t rightly be accused of being stupid. And although he wasn’t especially well known for visuals, he still had a knack for staging strong sequences, such as the explosion of a bus in his final theatrical film, The Interpreter.
Although his efforts behind the camera had flagged late in his career, Pollack kept up his strong reputation with some very fine performances in front of the camera, working for esteemed directors like Stanley Kubrick (Eyes Wide Shut) and Woody Allen (Husbands and Wives). One of his last on-screen appearances was as the boss of George Clooney’s law firm in Michael Clayton, a film that is very much like one of Pollack’s own movies: Understated but riveting. As it happens, Pollack was one of the producers on the film, with an assist from the recently departed Anthony Minghella.
Looking through his filmography, I’m sad to realize I haven’t caught up with a lot of his early work, like They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?, Three Days of the Condor or even The Way We Were. I’ll look forward to doing that soon to appreciate all the more what a fine talent we have lost. He will be missed.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Indiana Jones’ ‘Kingdom’ rules - mostly
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull delighted me even before I saw one frame of actual footage. Not many movies can inspire a grin merely by showing the Paramount logo.
I’m not going to tell you what that logo does, and I won’t reveal too many details of what comes after it. However, I will say that by the time the first action scene finished, I felt foolish for ever wondering if a fourth Indiana Jones film was really necessary. It was if it turned out to be this exciting.
That said, it’s not an unqualified success. Crystal Skull makes too many mistakes to be more than the third best Indiana Jones movie. It couldn’t hope to equal Raiders of the Lost Ark, and it doesn’t have quite the heart that made Last Crusade so memorable, but it’s much more fun than the morbid Temple of Doom.
Almost immediately, the new movie sets itself apart from its predecessors. While much of it feels very familiar, especially during the ever-breathless action scenes, it’s not quite like the Indiana Jones movies of the 80s. Those films drew inspiration from the action adventure serials of the 1930s, when all the other movies took place. Since this film takes place in 1957, it feels like the more whimsical sci-fi/adventure stories that were popular at the time.
After the terrific opening scenes, a greaser named Mutt Williams (Shia LaBeouf) literally rides into Indy’s life, Marlon Brando-style, imploring him to find the ancient crystal skull that can be used as a mind control agent by the Soviets. Mutt arrives just when Indy and his cohorts are feeling the weight of years gone by. Indy’s college dean (Jim Broadbent) laments the passing of loved ones and the old days when he says, “We’ve reached the age when life stops giving us things and starts taking them away.” A little more adventure would be in order.
The first half of this adventure is the best, as Steven Spielberg directs the action with impeccable flair. Befitting the era, the movie features everything from an atomic explosion to Howdy Doody to communist witch-hunting to bikers to mad Soviets to E.T.’s, if you will. Spielberg’s glee at working with the trappings of the era in which he grew up is palpable, infusing the movie with great energy.
Unfortunately, the second half of the movie dilutes that energy. Though Spielberg stages a bravura chase through double pathways in the rain forest, complete with the requisite “ewww” scene with multiple critters, the screenplay by David Koepp loses focus, tossing off too many twists and reversals. Worse yet, the filmmakers botch the climax.
Many purists will complain that the ending is too heavy on CGI, and that science fiction has no place in an Indiana Jones story. I disagree on both counts. All the Indiana Jones films used the top effects of their day, and the sci-fi fits in with the UFO craze of the 1950s. The problem with the climax was that I didn’t feel enough of a sense of peril. It gave me plenty to see, but not enough to feel, and what should have been the most exciting part of the movie was the least exciting.
I was also disappointed in the much-heralded return of Marion, Indy’s love from Raiders. While it’s great to see Karen Allen again, she isn’t given enough to do. More than anything else, she’s just an observer along for the ride, and Marion is worth much more than that.
The rest of the cast helps redeem the flaws. Fears that LaBeouf would be this movie’s Jar-Jar Binks were totally unfounded. He shows great charisma as an adventurer who doesn’t know his own strength. Cate Blanchett, as the chief Soviet baddie, eats the scenery for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but watching her do it is delectable. John Hurt may have the weirdest role in all of the Indiana Jones movies, but he plays a hypnotized expert on crystal skulls with zeal that’s hard to resist.
Chief among the movie’s strong points is none other than Indiana Jones himself. Harrison Ford’s exhilarating performance renders all of those jokes about Indy being an old codger null and void forever. Ford, 65, shows his age only in the lines on his face. If anything, he plays Indy with even greater gusto than he did in Last Crusade. The actor hasn’t been this much fun to watch in years.
Even when the movie stumbles, Ford rights it with his rock-steady hand. Thanks mainly to him, I came out of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull smiling, feeling several years younger and many pounds lighter.
GRADE: B+
(Note: For once, the MPAA has surprised me with a rating that’s too harsh. This may be the mildest PG-13 movie I’ve ever seen; aside from a scary scene or two, most young children will take it in stride, I think.)
Barring any breaking news, this review will remain the top post throughout the holiday weekend. Comment away and tell me what you anticipate, or what you think when you see the movie.
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s your take on the Indiana Jones sequels?
I have seen Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and it’s ….
Well, I can’t tell you just yet. My review will post in this space early Thursday morning. For the time being, I want to get your thoughts on Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
I have fond memories of Temple of Doom, partly because of its best scenes, and partly because it was the first movie I saw with girls who weren’t relatives. Still, I think it’s clearly the runt of the Indiana Jones litter, the movie I revisit least often.
The film has a great opening, up through when the raft lands in India, and a great last half, from the mine car chase forward. (Tellingly, the opening club sequence and the mine car chase were originally meant for Raiders.)
However, almost everything in the middle falls flat. Except for the fun spike room sequence, the middle is a turgid mess with a really nasty streak. Steven Spielberg’s direction, normally so sure-handed, feels sloppy and half-hearted. He’s even gone on the record as saying he pretty much dropped the ball on that film. And as for the heroine, Willie Scott … well, as Indiana put it, “The trouble with her is the noise.” Every other line of hers seems to be “EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!”
So it was a great relief when Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade turned out to be a return to form. There are some nagging flaws. The villain and the heroine were disappointingly ordinary, and I hated seeing Marcus Brody reduced to playing a slapstick buffoon.
What gives the third movie its greatest boost is the brilliant casting of Sean Connery. The filmmakers could have gone the easy route of making father and son carbon copies, but they turned Connery’s macho man persona on its head, making him into a befuddled academic who turns out to be not so bad in the field - and still has a way with the ladies, much to Indiana’s chagrin. He’s so much fun in the part that it’s almost too bad Connery had won an Oscar a couple of years before for The Untouchables - he’s just as good, if not better, in Last Crusade.
But the sequel isn’t all Connery and Ford. The opening scene with the young Indy is a blast, with a great performance by the late and still lamented River Phoenix, and the final search for the grail is quite ingenious.
What do you say?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
Happy 100th birthday, Jimmy Stewart!
Today marks the 100th birthday of my favorite Hollywood star of all time, Jimmy Stewart.
As is their habit, Turner Classic movies marks the occasion today, playing some of his best films. Click here for details, and more importantly, watch the movies when you get a chance.
Over the years people have talked often about how Jimmy Stewart was great because he projected that modesty marked by his halting “Waaallll,” that made everyone feel like his friend. As much star quality as he had (and he had plenty), he still seemed like one of us.
That’s all very true, of course, but I think there’s another part of Stewart’s star quality that doesn’t get talked about often enough: the conviction he brought to every role he played. Whether he was playing a nice guy or someone with more than a mean streak, he was always utterly believable.
Some of my favorite performances of his:
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington: If we had the impossible task of remembering Jimmy Stewart for only one performance, it probably ought to be this one. It’s the prototype example of one of his trademark “nice guys” put to a severe test, culminating in one of the great movie speeches of all time.
The Philadelphia Story: People often say that Stewart got an Oscar for this movie because he failed to get one for Mr. Smith. That’s probably true, but to suggest this performance is somehow not deserving of the award is almost as deluded as the Mr. Smith debacle. When else could you say Jimmy Stewart played a fast talker?
It’s a Wonderful Life: This often wrongly gets dismissed for being sweetness and light - as if being driven to suicide was sweetness and light. The despair of George Baily was frighteningly palpable, influenced, no doubt, by fresh memories of the World War II bombing missions Stewart piloted.
The Naked Spur: Winchester 73 was probably the best of the Stewart/Anthony Mann westerns, but this one contains what may be the actor’s most intense work, as a bounty hunter trying to bring a murderer to justice.
Vertigo: Here’s the performance that really turns the Jimmy Stewart persona on its head. He seems like his typical “nice guy” at first, but as he detective character spirals deep into the depths of obsession, Stewart reveals a sad and rather sick, twisted, damaged soul.
What are your favorite Jimmy Stewart performances? If he’s not your favorite Hollywood star, who is?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Movies on TV
Looking back: Raiders of the Lost Ark
Reviews for Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull are starting to roll in, and on the whole, they’re positive, although a few naysayers are griping. The general thinking seems to be that the film is of a piece with the flawed but entertaining sequels.
I’ll see the film Tuesday and will post my review early Thursday morning. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Instead, let’s get behind ourselves and discuss ye Indiana Jones films of olde.
As I mentioned last week, it would be foolish to hope for the new film to be the equal of Raiders of the Lost Ark. To my mind, it is the very best action-adventure film ever made, topping classics like The Adventures of Robin Hood or the early Bond films. Offhand, I can’t think of even a minor mis-step in the movie. It is my favorite first film of any series, overpowering Dr. No, Star Wars, Alien, The Terminator, Back to the Future, and even The Godfather.
What stands out in my mind most about seeing the film in 1981 is that it was one of the first movies that made me aware of how films can contract time. I remember looking at my watch after it was over and thinking “That was two hours? It felt more like 30 minutes!”
Another favorite moment was the ROAR of laughter that erupted after Indy blasted the obnoxious swordsman with one shot. That may be the single loudest sustained laugh I have heard in a theater to this very day.
I’ve gone on to see the film several times in a theater since, at an Indiana Jones marathon, as a double feature with The Mummy (which worked surprisingly well) and projected on an IMAX screen. It’s a movie that I never tire of - even though watching it sometimes drains me of energy.
What are your thoughts on/memories of seeing Raiders of the Lost Ark? What makes the movie hold up so well?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
‘Prince Caspian’ strengthens the Narnia series
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian becomes one of the rare sequels to better its predecessor, although it takes a long time for the new movie to roar as loudly as its familiar lion.
The first Narnia, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, was a solid if tentative fantasy. Considering how revered C.S. Lewis’ book is, the film often felt more like an adaptation of a Narnia imitator than the genuine article.
The sequel impresses with a strong opening sequence that cleverly sets up the story and displays a more vibrant visual style than the first film. The title character (Ben Barnes) flees from his evil uncle, King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), with the prince unwittingly summoning the four Pevensie youths back to Narnia.
Only a year has passed in their time, but more than 1,000 years have gone by in Narnia, with the Pevensies finding the land they knew in ruins, after centuries of oppression. They join forces with Caspian so he and the Narnians can claim their rightful place.
After the promising beginning, the sequel begins to lose its way, threatening to repeat the mistakes of the first movie. For too long, Prince Caspian lacks urgency. When the kids get to Narnia, there’s not enough of a sense of wonder or astonishment. Their reaction is too subdued, as if Narnia were a place they saw all the time. Slack pacing doesn’t help matters either; the movie could have stood to be tightened in several places.
At about the midway point, however, when the heroes must buckle down and battle their foes, the wind returns to the movie’s sails. Andrew Adamson directs the action much more confidently than before, staging several rousing battles with thrilling vantage points both high in the clouds and low beneath the earth. The visual effects are greatly improved to boot.
Once the movie gets going, the lead actors are just as appealing as they were, with Georgie Henley being especially winning as the youngest girl Lucy, who makes the themes about finding lost faith go down with ease. The charismatic Barnes is a terrific addition, but the real scene stealers are the sword-fighting mice, who, funnily enough, reminded me of Puss in Boots, who made his debut in Shrek 2, co-directed by Adamson.
What I especially liked about this new film that it wasn’t simply a retread, or the first movie on steroids. Like all good follow-ups, this one heightened the drama and forged its own identity. For reasons I won’t give away here, the third movie, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, promises to be an even more radical departure - and given the way this series is improving, I’m anxious to see it.
GRADE: B+
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Listen to me on the radio!
The Buggles said that video killed the radio star, but on Friday, I will become a radio star talking about a certain kind of video - namely movies.
The folks at WMUB radio in Oxford have very kindly invited me to appear on their show called WMUB Forum. Myself and NPR film critic Bob Mondello will be talking about summer movies and film criticism in general.
If you can’t pick up 88.5 on your dial, you can listen on their Website. (Look for the links in the upper left-hand corner.) The show will broadcast at 9 a.m. Friday and repeat at 7 p.m. If you happen to miss it (and how sad would that be?), the Web site does archive their shows.
So take this opportunity to know what I sound like, and to listen to a little back-and-forth about movies. If you like, you can give me a little back-and-forth here and let me know how I did, he said somewhat nervously.
This is Sir Critic, signing off for now.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
What do you expect from the new Narnia?
I’ll post my review of The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian Friday morning, but first I wanted to get a sense of what people are expecting from the second C.S. Lewis adaptation from the Disney team.
I know the history of most film franchises pretty well. but I’m not exactly what one would call steeped in Narnia lore. I know far less about it than I do the worlds of Indiana Jones, Batman, Iron Man, or even Speed Racer and Get Smart. I haven’t read any of the Narnia books, and I’ve only seen the 1979 animated movie and, of course, the 2005 feature film.
What I can say is that I hope the new Narnia movie is better than the first one. I liked the previous film, but for an adaptation of such a beloved property, I found it curiously mild. It was clear that Andrew Adamson, who co-directed the first two Shrek films, was still finding his feet as a live action director. The pacing was uneven, and for all of the detail lavished on the production, it came off as a junior version of The Lord of the Rings. And there is NO way on God’s green earth it should have been nominated for the Visual Effects Oscar instead of Revenge of the Sith.
On the positive side, I very much liked the cast. All the Pevensie kids were charming, and Tilda Swinton was excellent as the White Witch. The overall production was quite impressive-looking, even though the digital animals sometimes looked dodgy.
My hope is that Prince Caspian moves a little more briskly and has much more tension, but I want to know what you think. What do you hope for from the sequel? Is it a good idea for there to be hints of a romance between the prince and Susan, which I understand is an invention of the movie? If you must include revealing details of the plot, kindly provide spoiler warnings.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Let’s temper those Indy Jones expectations, OK?
The big day is more than a week away, and the air is thick with anticipation - and yes, dread over Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
(Phew, that title. I’m gonna have tendinitis by the end of June).
There’s no question whatsoever that the movie is going to have an enormous opening at the box office. One projection has it making a breathtaking $172 million in its first five days.
Ah, but here comes the important question: Will the movie be any GOOD?
Early reviews that have posted at Aint It Cool News and other sites generally have a tone of “Weellll, it’s not BAD, but…” That has sent some fans into convulsions, with some already berating George Lucas for ruining their lives yet again. Because if anything in the movie is bad, it MUST be George’s fault, even though he ah … isn’t the director of this series and never has been. These early reviews have even prompted a news story of dubious merit in The New York Times.
Lucas was so scarred over the beating he took on the Star Wars prequels, he’s already on the defensive about the new Indy, saying “Don’t expect the second coming.”
And you know what? He’s right. Besides, we’ve already had our less than great Indiana Jones movie. It was called Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
I’ve never bought into the revisionist thinking that Temple of Doom is underappreciated. It has a great beginning and a great ending, but an extremely uneven middle section, with some uncommonly sloppy direction. Steven Spielberg is on the record as having more or less dropped the ball on that one.
So if Crystal Skull turns out to be another Temple of Doom, I’ll be disappointed, but I’m not going to slit my wrists. I’m hoping for something more on the level of Last Crusade - a movie that’s lots of fun, if not the equal of Raiders of the Lost Ark. (No action adventure is the equal of Raiders anyway.) If people are expecting Raiders-level thrills from Crystal Skull, they’re setting themselves up for months of depression.
You want a film that’s going to be this astounding, life-changing masterpiece? I suggest you stop looking. Why? Because you never see the truly revolutionary films coming. That’s why they’re revolutionary.
Agree/Disagree?
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Waiting for DVD - not always a good idea
Some comments I got on my Speed Racer review, and some I heard elsewhere recently, got me to thinking about the whole “I’ll wait for DVD” mentality.
Regular readers of this blog know that I strongly advocate the theatrical experience. At the same time, I know a lot of people don’t have the money/time/patience to venture out to the megaplex. And whether they like it or not, filmmakers know that most people will first see their movies on DVD.
That said, the way people categorize “wait for DVD” bothers me. It seems that when people hear that a movie isn’t so great, they say “Well, I’ll wait for the DVD” -as if somehow the movie won’t be so bad on DVD as it would be in the theater.
Excuse me?
I suppose the reasoning here is largely economic. People reason that if they just rent a DVD and the movie turns out to be mediocre (or worse), then at least they won’t have blown a big chunk of dough on it. All well and good, but does that mean that if you wait to see, say, Jumper at home, that passage of time and the lowering of the price suddenly makes the film better? I doubt it. A bad movie is a bad movie no matter where you watch it.
Here’s what really brought this issue home. A colleague recently asked me about 10,000 BC. When I twisted my face into a grimace of disgust, my co-worker said “Wait for DVD, huh?”
I replied, “No! Don’t see it at ALL!” If I were hogtied and forced to watch 10,000 BC on DVD, I’d still think it was a terrible movie. And if I were hogtied and forced, my opinion of the movie would probably sink even lower.
Although bad movies don’t become better at home, bad movies do work better in a theater in some cases. Take Speed Racer. I didn’t think the movie worked, but if I had a young child who wanted to see it, I would absolutely take him/her to the theater. It has enough visual pow that the movie would lose something on even the biggest small screen. (And if you mean to see it, you’d better move quick. Given how poorly it fared at the box office, it will probably be out of most decent theaters by the end of June.)
So the next time you say “I’ll wait for the DVD,” make sure you’re waiting for something that might actually be good. That’s how you get the most bang for your buck.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Sir Critic muses
Today’s DVDs - new Denzel, old Indy Jones
Today’s new DVD releases are a bit of a mixed bag, but there is one new release that is very much worth seeing, and a new release of an older set of movies that might be useful if you’re looking to play catch-up:
The Great Debaters: Yes, a movie about a lot of students talking can be thrilling in the hands of a perfect cast and a confident director like Denzel Washington, who builds his second film, about a 1930s debate team, to a deeply affecting finale. It might sound like movie “medicine,” but it doesn’t feel like it. GRADE: A
Untraceable: Clever story idea of a killer who makes his Internet audience culpable in his murders goes badly awry when smart characters become really, really stupid. Not even Diane Lane escapes the IQ drain. Full review: GRADE: C
Also out today
Indiana Jones: The Adventure Collection: Here comes the inevitable double-dip just before the new movie comes out, to be followed by the inevitable triple-dip when the new movie joins the collection. If for some reason you didn’t pick these up on DVD already, now’s your chance - and this time the movies are available separately. There are some new bonus features, but if you have the box set that came out a few years ago, then, from everything I’ve heard, this new set is pretty superfluous. Purchase accordingly.
Mad Money: Diane Keaton, Katie Holmes and Queen Latifah play Federal Reserve employees who plan to steal money that’s about to be destroyed. I didn’t see this one, and a tagline like “They’re having the crime of their lives” doesn’t make me want to.
Youth Without Youth: Francis Ford Coppola’s first movie in 10 years made nary a ripple after critics collectively said “He waited 10 years to make THIS?” Still, I might check it out because Coppola does a commentary, and even his commentary on his bad movies (e.g. Finian’s Rainbow) is fascinating.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
No, Speed Racer, no!
Speed Racer is a great, big beautiful contraption of a movie - that has a maddening habit of breaking down repeatedly. It has the body of a Ferrari, but the engine of a Pinto.
Some people will love this movie; others will hate it. I loved it and hated it. I loved it for its dazzling design and effects, and I hated it for wasting all that innovation on a threadbare story.
I knew Speed Racer would be a movie of extremes, but the extremes cut both ways. What works in the movie is very good, but what fails in the movie is often very bad. The Wachowski brothers, the creators of the Matrix trilogy, have written and directed a Frankenstein monster of a film that’s only half alive.
Unsurprisingly, the Wachowskis have made a technical marvel. The art direction looks like a Roman candle factory gone haywire, but in a good way. If nothing else, this just might be the most colorful movie ever made. Rather than being blinding, the movie is eye-filling. There’s something wild to see on almost every inch of the screen.
Even more impressive is the editing style, which seamlessly segues from shot to shot, creating brilliant collages of imagery. This is as much a revolution for digital editing as JFK was for cutting on film. Early on, when young Speed imagines himself in a race, and every object in the scene except him is a pencil drawing, I smiled and said “wow” out loud. I thought I was in for a great ride.
Then the story had to intrude, and the caution flags went flying.
What the screenplay does get right are the heroes. Speed (Emile Hirsch), his girlfriend Trixie (Christina Ricci) and his mom and pop (Susan Sarandon and John Goodman) are all very charming. Even the brash little brother Spritle (Paulie Litt) and his chimp, who would have thrown a wrench into other movies, have some inspired moments.
The same cannot be said of the villains, a rogues gallery of goons who aren’t all that menacing. They wanted Speed to race for their big corporation, but Speed and his family aren’t in it for the money, so naturally, they must be destroyed. The story wants to be a parable against greed, but when it moves away from Speed’s family, the film’s energy sags badly. Kids will like all the pretty colors and the action, but many of them will be bored when they talk about money and contracts and corruption and all that stuff.
And that feeds into another problem with Speed Racer - it is far, far, too long, especially for a movie designed for kids. This two hour and 15 minute film could stand to be a half hour shorter at the very least.
Then, when the movie does speed up, sometimes it spins out of control. While all the races have clever moments, the Wachowskis and their editors have cut them too fast, making the action hard to follow - and that’s a fatal mistake when the racing scenes are your bread and butter.
If the racing scenes don’t work as well as they should, then a movie called Speed Racer can’t either, no matter how much technical wizardry is on display.
GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Speed Racer: Red, yellow or green light?
I just got my ticket to see the midnight screening of Speed Racer, and to be honest, I don’t know whether to be excited or not.
Obviously, I’m getting a high-octane thrill ride that skews young, to a family audience, and yet the reviews I’ve read are sending out very mixed signals.
Quite a few critics hate it. A key quote comes from Anthony Lane of the New Yorker, who writes, “I reckon the M.P.A.A. should use the advent of Speed Racer to revive an old ratings symbol: a big Roman X, meaning “of no conceivable interest to anyone over the age of ten.”
Christy Lemire of the Associated Press smacks it with a one-star rating, saying: “At two hours and 15 minutes, it’s way too long for little kids, the only ones for whom this explosion at a crayon factory would seem even vaguely entertaining. Adults seeking the nostalgia of their own childhood will just be disappointed, because Speed Racer the movie bears little resemblance to Speed Racer the TV cartoon.”
On the other hand …
David Poland of Movie City News writes: “You will know whether this is a movie that will stay in your heart early on, when young Speed imagines himself racing. I won’t give away what the imagery of the scene is, but if you find yourself as charmed as delighted as I did, put on your seatbelt, because you’re in for a great ride.”
Then, Moriarity over at Ain’t it Cool chimes in with “Speed Racer is a great piece of pop art, but more than that, it’s a genuine, heartfelt, sincere family film that celebrates exactly what it is that defines a family. And if you’re remotely cynical walking in, you will most likely reject it completely. That would be a shame.”
Then there’s Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, who seems to be of two minds about the movie.
“This is a deranged, steroid-cranked family-action movie…the work of madmen — undeniably brash and looney and, I feel, desperately in need of a quaalude. … I didn’t sit there consumed with loathing for this thing. It’s too fascinating for that. But it’s also a movie that’s saying over and over, ‘Look at us! Look at what we’re doing!’ It’s too breathtaking to really entertain.”
Now do you see why I’m confused?
I’ve heard the name of Tron invoked in some reviews, and I really like Tron. But some of these more negative sum-ups suggest the movie is very insular, and that can mean real trouble.
The only thing I can say for sure is that I’m in for sensory overload - which means the review I’ll write tonight ought to be … interesting.
So what do you guys make of Speed Racer? Is it a definite yes,a definite no, or a definite maybe? If it doesn’t ring your bell, well … What Happens in Vegas with Ashton Kutcher and Cameron Diaz screens at midnight tonight too.
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Sex and the City: We want sticky breakups
I’m helping out a colleague of mine today with their own summer movie story.
Breaking up is never easy, especially when someone ends it with a Post-It note.
That’s exactly what happened to the leading lady of Sex and the City, Carrie Bradshaw, when she woke one morning to find a little Post-It note with a big message: “I’m sorry. I can’t. Don’t hate me.”
In celebration of the release of the Sex and the City - The Movie, which hits the silver screen May 30, we are looking for your bad break-up stories. If you’ve had a sticky end like Carrie’s, let us know.
Tell us how you got dumped by contacting reporter Meagan Engle at mengle@coxohio.com or (513) 705-2551. Names will be changed to protect the innocent — and the guilty.
Permalink | | Categories: Coming Attractions
Are you interested in a PG-13 Terminator movie?
If you can block out the din of daily life around here, that wailing you can hear in the distance is the sci-fi geek crowd crying foul over the new Terminator movie.
Specifically, they’re upset that Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins (kind of a mouthful, innit it?) due out May of next year, will be rated PG-13.
This is similar to the hue and cry that was raised when Live Free or Die Hard came out with a PG-13 last year, but I thought that “controversy” was overblown. I liked the movie, but I didn’t sit there thinking, “Man, this would be SO much better if there were more blood and McClane said “f—-” a lot.” Instead, I was thinking, “Man, this would be SO much better if the villain were stronger and if the action weren’t so derivative.”
With the Terminator franchise, I think the complaints are more valid because the new movie is set during the big future war between man and machine, and rating a war movie PG-13 seems, well - stupid.
UPDATE: Commenter “Ronster” made an excellent point when he said: “To me, the diff on R and PG13 is whether the filmmaker intends the movie for an adult or non-adult audience, primarily, and in marketing, surprise/shock value, themes and approach. Ratings are about age-appropriateness, not about filmic quality… or at least, that’s what they USED to be about… “
One of the ratings boards’ failings, in my view, is that they tend to be lax on violence. If last year’s Beowulf had been a live action movie it would have been rated R without a doubt, and yet, because the violence was “digitized,” that makes it less impactful. Um … sure.
When it comes to Terminator that makes me wonder. The first Terminator would still clearly be an R now. But I have to wonder whether Terminator 2 would be rated R by today’s board since it doesn’t have a lot of graphic violence and there’s no sex. Yesterday’s R may be today’s PG-13.
That said, I have a bigger problem with the new movie, and I can boil it down to three letters: McG.
II”mm aallrreeaaddyyy ggettiinngg ttrreemmoorrss at the idea of that director bringing his ultra ADD style to this franchise. His Charlie’s Angels movies shot my optic and auditory nerves for weeks, with the sequel being so bad it made me think the second Legally Blonde was nearly a great movie. I wish the geeks would cry about McG more.
And I don’t know what possessed Christian Bale (who will play John Connor) to star in this movie with McG directing. I’m hoping he’ll snap and direct the movie himself when he realizes that McG’s takes only last four seconds max.
Do we need a PG-13 Terminator? Or another Terminator movie period, for that matter?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Today’s DVDs: Caution: Do not eat before reading
(Walks in DVD store)
OK, let’s see what we’ve got today on the new release wall. Hmmm.
First Sunday: January release with Ice Cube. Says “Comedy.” Kinda doubt it. Next.
I’m Not There: Well, this one I can kinda sorta recommend. It’s certainly bold and unique in its execution, by telling the story of Bob Dylan using actors of different ages, races and even genders. Unlike some critics, I don’t believe an innovative idea equals a great movie all by itself. There’s this little thing called execution that matters too, and that’s pretty uneven. Cinephiles should check it out just for Cate Blanchett’s amazing work, and Bob Dylan aficionados will get into it, but Scorsese’s No Direction Home was good enough for me. I’d give it a B-.
Over Her Dead Body: And her dead movie. Proof positive that Eva Longoria may be a babe, but she ain’t a movie star. What the heck is Paul Rudd doing in this? Did he smoke too many joints doing research for Forgetting Sarah Marshall?
Geez, this selection really stinks. You’d think this were the summer movie season or something.
PS I Love You: I never know what to make of movies that have Beatles songs in their titles but they aren’t Beatle movies. Do I give the movies credit for having good taste or do I sneer at them for associating Beatle tunes with mediocrity? I’d like to think this Hilary Swank vehicle is worthwhile, because it’s written and directed by Richard LaGravanese, who I really like. He made Freedom Writers with Swank, which was a solid little gem, but everything I’ve read about this movie screams “drippy melodrama.” Nah.
Oh, wait, I overlooked this one back here in the H’s …
The Hottie and the Nottie. Paris Hilton.
You know what folks? I’m sorry to have bothered you. Just go back and comment on one of my Iron Man posts or something. I really gotta go.
(Runs out the door searching frantically for the nearest bottle filled with a certain pink liquid)
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Iron Man sequel, Thor, Avengers announced
Wow. The ink is barely dry on Iron Man’s boffo box office reports, when Marvel announces, not unexpectedly, that Iron Man 2 is a go, set for April 30, 2010.
What IS a bit surprising is that Marvel has announced a full slate of future movies. They are Thor, due out June 4, 2010; The First Avenger: Captain America May 6, 2011; The Avengers, July 2011; and Ant-Man, which has no release date.
Marvel is understandably heady with its success, considering Iron Man, the first feature the company produced independently, opened bigger than most people expected. But I wonder if they’re moving too fast.
The Thor and Captain America titles make sense; those characters are pretty well known. But the Avengers, which are kind of a Marvel all-stars, seems like a risky venture to me this soon - just look at all the trouble WB has had getting a Justice League movie with the DC heroes off the ground. And who but ardent comic nuts cares about Ant-Man?
Marvel had better be careful - I have a sneaking suspicion that a good chunk of the goodwill they have right now will evaporate once The Incredible Hulk comes out in June. Then where will that put them?
What do you say?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Iron Man/Favorite movie outings with kids
Well, so much for the stupid theory that the release of Grand Theft Auto IV would put a crimp in the opening weekend grosses of Iron Man. Wow.
And good news for fans of the movie - that sequel you (and I) are waiting for may hit as soon as 2010.
To get the blog going this week, however, a I’d like to pose a question. A few comments on my Iron Man review were about taking kids to the movie. It seems to be have gone over especially well with the young ones.
So I wonder: What was your most memorable moviegoing experience with a child? It doesn’t have to be the first movie, necessarily, and it doesn’t have to be memorable for happy reasons. Many of you, I’m sure, have known the trauma of taking a child to one of the tragic Disney movies (Bambi, Lion King) as lampooned in this brilliant Animaniacs short.
If you don’t have kids yourself, your answer can be about taking other kids to the movies, or hearing funny kid responses. Comment and share.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
‘Iron Man’ not quite ironclad, but still a blast
I can’t wait to see Iron Man II. I bet it will be even better than the original.
I know, I’m getting ahead of myself, but I’m more anxious to see the movie that will come out in two or three years than I am to revisit the movie that just opened.
That’s not to say the first Iron Man isn’t a lot of fun. It has some spectacular moments, powered by an Oscar quality performance by Robert Downey Jr.
Right off the bat, it’s easy to see that the brilliant engineer Tony Stark will be a different kind of hero. He’s filled with cocky bravado, which is at once arrogant and justified. When someone compares Tony to Leonardo Da Vinci, he retorts, “That’s ridiculous. I don’t paint.” No one can deny the man is a genius, even when they can’t stand him.
But not even Stark’s inflated pride can stop him from being shaken to the core when, on a mission in Afghanistan, his convoy is ambushed by terrorists who want Stark to build them a super weapon. Stark complies all right, by creating a massive mechanical suit with a heck of a weapons cache.
Still, once that ordeal passes, Stark is no longer interested in being a man of war. Haunted by how his weapons have been used against him, Stark vows to put his inventions to work for more altruistic purposes. This does not sit at all well with his longtime partner, Obadiah Stane (a bald and bearded Jeff Bridges), who wants to maintain the company’s lucrative standing.
Like many superhero origin movies, Iron Man tends to slow down sometimes because it has to set up the world of its hero. The same was true of the 1978 Superman movie, the first Spider-Man movie and the 2003 Hulk. However, Iron Man’s biggest problem isn’t pacing. It’s the lame villain.
I’m not going to explain who or what that is, because I think the movie means for it to be a “surprise,” even though any experienced viewer should be able to spot it from the first reel. The bigger problem, though, is that the bad guy is never as threatening as he should be. I rarely got the sense Tony, or the world was in any mortal danger. That makes the big climactic battle a bit of a letdown.
Such a weak villain might have ruined a lesser movie, but Downey’s triumphant performance makes that impossible. I knew Downey would pull it off, but I was still amazed at how superbly he carried this movie. Many of Downey’s roles have been marked by a playful sarcasm, but it’s never been put to better use than it has here.
Typically, the hero’s greatest character flaw subsides after he or she survives the ordeal that made him a costumed crusader, but that’s not what happens to Tony Stark. He undergoes a change of heart, to be sure, but he was full of himself before Afghanistan, and he was just as full of himself after it. That quality is at once Tony Stark’s great strength and weakness, and it makes him unique among heroes. Watch how it plays out when Tony is testing his suit to great comic effect.
Just as refreshing is Tony’s relationship with his gal Friday, Pepper Potts, played with boundless charm by Gwyneth Paltrow. Theirs isn’t the “I love him but can’t have him” relationship like Peter Parker and Mary Jane or the “If only she knew” tap dance that Clark Kent plays with Lois Lane. Instead, the two engage in a delectable he/she loves me/loves me not banter that makes their flirtation sparkle.
(Funnily enough, the first Iron Man suit looks very much like the robots that tromp through Manhattan in the severely underappreciated Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, which also starred one Gwyneth Paltrow.)
Behind the scenes, the greatest credit for Iron Man’s success must go to director Jon Favreau, who has been quietly building his strengths. He pulled off the miraculous feat of making Will Ferrell funny in Elf, and he showed how the movie Jumanji should have been made when he directed the too little seen Zathura.
In both movies, Favreau cannily used low-tech effects, and carries that approach to its pinnacle in Iron Man. There are plenty of digital effects, to be sure, but they’re augmented by the mechanical creations of Stan Winston’s studio. The mixed approach makes most of the action scenes play beautifully
Am I disappointed that Iron Man wasn’t a home run? Not really. The first Spider-Man, in retrospect, plays like a very entertaining set up for an even greater movie to follow. I have every confidence that from here on out, Iron Man will only fly higher.
GRADE: B+
Seen it already? Feel free to comment and tell me what you think.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
August’s Summer Movies: Mummies, clones n such
When it comes to the month of August, summer movies are like short-distance runners. They start strong, then taper off by the time kids go back to school. Here are this year’s diminishing returns.
And here are my overviews of May, June and July’s movies. I will post my review of Iron Man tomorrow morning. So here’s a teaser: It’s great - at times.
AUGUST 1
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
The lowdown: Brendan Fraser is back but Rachel Weisz is not as the “lite’ Indy Jones joins forces with Maria Bello to fight baddies played by Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh.
The box office: $100 million
The forecast: Decent cast, lousy director. The helmsman this time is Rob Cohen, who almost makes previous director Stephen Sommers look like an artiste. The man has exactly one good movie under his belt: the coincidentally titled Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story. Is it just me or is there not much of a clamor for this series to return?
The prospect: C
The lowdown: Rainn Wilson and Christina Applegate star in the story of a failed drama who gets another shot at the limelight.From the director of The Full Monty.
The box office: $20 million
The forecast: Some good actors, but I really have no read on this one.
The prospect: C
The lowdown: The result of the presidential election comes down to one man’s vote. Kevin Costner and Kelsey Grammer star.
The box office: $40 million
The forecast: Why pay to see this when we can watch at home for free this election year?
The prospect: C
AUGUST 8
The lowdown: A stoner (Seth Rogen) sees a corrupt cop commit a murder, so he and his buddy (James Franco) flee the fuzz.
The box office: $90 million
The forecast: I’ve heard this described as what would happen if Brad Pitt’s character in True Romance got his own movie. And to top if all off, the Superbad authors have their script directed by indie auteur David Gordon Green (George Washington, All the Real Girls). Man. Can’t pass THAT up.
The prospect: A
The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
The lowdown: The fabulous fitted foursome returns for another go-round of life and love. Despite the title, the film actually adapts the fourth book of the series.
The box office: $50 million
The forecast: The first movie was a charming little sleeper. And here’s the funny thing: In the first movie, Alexis Bledel (The Gilmore Girls) and Amber Tamblyn (Joan of Arcadia). Now the shoe is on the other foot, with America Ferrara topping Ugly Betty and Blake Lively starring in Gossip Girl. Whichever way things lean, it should be fun to see this group together again.
The prospect: B
AUGUST 15
The box office: $40 million
The lowdown: Clive Owen and Naomi Watts star in a thriller by Run Lola Run director Tom Tykwer.
The forecast: I’m sold.
The prospect: B
The lowdown: A mall security guard gets embroiled in a particular department store’s mirrors, which apparently cause very bad things to happen. Keifer Sutherland leads the cast.
The box office: $25 million
The forecast: It’s from the director of High Tension and The Hills Have Eyes remake, neither of which I’ve seen. Should I break a mirror and hope this movie gets seven years’ bad luck?
The prospect: C
The lowdown: It’s another Star Wars prequel! Only this time it’s CG animation!
The box office: $65 million
The forecast: Yeah, I know that’s low for a Star Wars movie, but I get the distinct impression that only the staunchest devotees will turn out for this one.
The prospect: B
The lowdown: Ben Stiller directs this war movie spoof about a group of actors shooting a war movie who get involved in a real battle. Stiller, Jack Black and Robert Downey, Jr. star.
The box office: $90 million
The forecast: Is this another bit of inspired lunacy like Zoolander or ambitious but muddled comedy like The Cable Guy? I’m leaning toward the former.
The prospect: B
The lowdown: A rebellious princess (Emma Roberts) is shipped off to a strict English boarding school by her father.
The box office: $35 million
The forecast: Didn’t Amanda Bynes star in this when it was called What a Girl Wants? One of these days, Roberts is going to get a decent lead vehicle, but I don’t think this is it.
The prospect: C
AUGUST 22
The lowdown: When a talk radio host (Uma Thurman) advises one of her listeners to break up with her boyfriend the ex sets about getting his revenge.
The box office: $25 million
The forecast: Hard to read the pulse on this one. The director is Griffin Dunne, who has a spotty resume. Maybe, maybe not.
The prospect: C
The lowdown: Nicolas Cage tries on his low rent action chops in a film by cult directors the Pang brothers, who have yet to break out here.
The box office: $30 million
The forecast: Can’t be that much dopier than Ghost Rider … can it?
The prospect: D
The lowdown: The story of flies who tagged along on Apollo 11.
The box office: $20 million
The forecast: Zany idea, but that’s not enough, even if Buzz Aldrin did do a voice.
The prospect: C
The lowdown: A Playboy bunny (Anna Faris) who was recently kicked out of the mansion becomes the new house mother for a sorority in jeopardy.
The box office: $50-$60 million
The forecast: The writers of Legally Blonde must have a thing for bunnies. On the plus side: Anna Faris has always been fun to watch, even in mediocre movies. On the negative side: It’s from Adam Sandler’s production company, which has yet to release a Sandler-less product that doesn’t induce the gag reflex. At least Rob Schneider’s not in it.
The prospect: C, maybe B if I’m feeling charitable and am swayed by the presence of American Idol’s Katharine McPhee, who plays a pregnant hippie (!)
AUGUST 29
The lowdown: A mercenary (Vin Diesel) must escort a woman out who carrying a synthetic virus — that could bring about the end of humankind.
The box office: $40 million
The forecast: Funny, I always thought Diesel was the virus that could bring about the end of humankind.
The prospect: D
The lowdown: A high school drama teacher tries to bring a Shakespearian sequel to the stage despite disinterested students, budget cuts, and his own lack of talent.
The box office: $10-$15 million.
The forecast: I caught the trailer for this recently and found it quite funny. And I have to say, any film that has Elisabeth Shue playing an “alternate future version” of herself at least his some imagination going for it.
The prospect: B
And that’s the summer folks! What’s worth seeing in theaters? Waiting for DVD? Skipping entirely?
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
