Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2008 > June
June 2008
What movies made you ecstatic with praise?
True to my word in my review Friday, I saw WALL-E a second and a third time. And I just might go a fourth time this week.
Yes, I think it’s THAT great. Each viewing only reminds me of that. You know you love a movie when even three-star reviews irritate you.
So with that in mind, I ask you: What movies have made you just absolutely flip, praising it to the skies at every turn? What movies have made you repeatedly say to people, “You’ve GOT to see this one!”
Let me know. It can be a movie you’ve seen in a theater or at home. And while you’re at it, tell me what you thought of WALL-E. I particularly liked this comment.
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Ask the Audience
WALL-E: One of Pixar’s very best
How much did I love WALL-E? Let me list the ways.
I didn’t want it to end. Immediately after the credits rolled and the Pixar logo’s light clicked off, I wanted to run up to the projectionist and ask him to show the movie again.
Failing that, I immediately made plans to see the movie for at least a second time this weekend. Maybe even a third.
I called three friends to rave about the film only minutes after seeing it.
I also looked into buying the soundtrack with Thomas Newman’s absolutely gorgeous score.
Watching WALL-E, I forgot I was in a movie theater.
So why is the movie this wonderful? Aside from the visual splendor and the storytelling savvy I’ve come to expect from Pixar, it’s like no other animated movie I’ve ever seen. WALL-E has about 10 minutes of human dialogue, if that, so the movie relies almost completely on images to tell its story. The effect is spellbinding.
WALL-E stands for Waste Allocation Load Lifter-Earth class, and he has lots of work to do. He lives on Earth, hundreds of years from now. Humans have abandoned the planet, leaving trash everywhere. We see that there had been a whole fleet of WALL-Es, but only one remains.
As dutiful as he is, WALL-E is not merely a machine. He’s a curious little romantic. He constantly plays with objects he finds in the wreckage, throwing away a diamond ring but keeping the box. His favorite pastime is watching a VHS tape of Hello, Dolly!, his only indicator of what people were like. WALL-E can’t speak English, but his forlorn eyes make it obvious he longs for company besides a cockroach.
Company arrives in the form of EVE (Extra-terrestrial Vegetation Evaluator), a sleek little robot with a gleaming white surface and lights that blink from within. (She’s clearly a nod to Apple products.) While she rockets around looking for signs of organic life, the smitten WALL-E follows her everywhere, to her initial annoyance and eventual amusement. But when he finds what she is looking for, things don’t turn out at all as WALL-E expects.
The last act of the picture, which takes place mostly on the spaceship where humans have been living, is brasher in tone, but necessarily so. A few people have accused this part of WALL-E of being preachy, never mind that there’s not much dialogue. The movie obviously has a “green” message on its mind, but it’s delivered in such a creative, lighthearted way that it only adds to the movie’s immense appeal.
I could go on about the technical wizardry of WALL-E, describing its marvelously inventive look and how it mimics science fiction films of the 1970s. I could talk about how special effects guru Dennis Muren (Jurassic Park, Terminator 2) and top cinematographer Roger Deakins (most of the Coen brothers’ movies) helped craft the images, and how the wondrous creations by Star Wars sound designer Ben Burtt (who also voices WALL-E) enveloped me. However, these things aren’t what I remember most about the movie.
What I remember most is how my heart sang during this movie. As ever with Pixar, the emotional resonance of the story makes the most dramatic impact. I never imagined that one of the most touching romances I’ve ever seen would be between two mechanical objects who don’t speak English, but here it is. Pixar can wring so much effectiveness from EVE’s LED eyes alone, it’s amazing. That the romance plays out almost wordlessly gives it a rare grace and beauty, worthy of Charlie Chaplin’s masterpiece, City Lights.
Some people have wondered if children will be able to deal with a movie that has almost no dialogue. If the kids at my screening are any indication, the answer is, absolutely. When the kids weren’t laughing at WALL-E’s slapstick antics, they stared in silent wonder, asking nary a question and making nary a sound. Director Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo), and his co-writers Pete Docter and Jim Reardon have made a miracle.
I imagine some will wonder if this film could possibly be as good as I make it out to be. If other people think it’s half as good as I do, they should still come away very happy. Do not wait for the DVD. Even if you don’t have kids, see it. If you have a baby at home, hire a sitter and see it. And then make sure the sitter sees it too.
WALL-E is one of Pixar’s very best movies, making it one of the best movies of all time - animated or otherwise.
GRADE: A+
Permalink | Comments (13) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s opening Friday, June 27?
If WALL-E were the only film to open this weekend, that should more than suffice for most people. However, there are actually some other interesting attractions this weekend.
Wanted: This Angelina Jolie action flick has attracted surprisingly strong reviews. I just might check it out this weekend, after seeing WALL-E for the second or third time.
At the arthouses
The Neon in Dayton opens the well-reviewed Priceless, with Audrey Tautou of Amelie fame. Little Art opens Then She Found Me, directed by Helen Hunt.
The Ultra Cool Films series at Victoria Theatre begins its great lineup this weekend with The King and I, one of the better Rodgers and Hammerstein film adaptations, thanks in no small part to the performances by Deborah Kerr and Oscar winner Yul Brynner.
My WALL-E review posts at noon. Prepare yourselves for a gusher.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Can ‘The Dark Knight’ come out NOW, please?
Now that I’ve seen WALL-E, a new film has to take its place as the movie I’m most looking forward to seeing this year.
That would be The Dark Knight.
I was already primed to see the movie, but this interview director Christopher Nolan gave to Wired magazine made me feel like a starving animal.
The interview emphasizes how Nolan eschews digital effects for practical ones, and how he shot parts of it with IMAX cameras. Most feature that play on IMAX screens are digital blow-ups of a 35-millimeter negative, but since Nolan used actual IMAX cameras, those scenes will have extra kick.
Key quotes:
“Anything you notice as technology reminds you that you’re in a movie theater,” Nolan explains. “Even if you’re trying to portray something fantastical and otherworldly, it’s always about trying to achieve invisible manipulation.” Especially, he adds, with Batman, “the most real of all the superheroes, who has no superpowers.”
(Christian) Bale definitely caught Nolan’s naturalism bug: When he heard that his stunt double, Buster Reeves, was prepping for an aerial shot atop the Sears Tower, he pulled rank. “I said to Buster, ‘No you’re not. You get to do a lot of fantastic stunts. You’re not taking that one away from me.’”
“So we got an Imax shot of Christian Bale as Batman standing on top of the Sears Tower,” (cinematographer Wally) Pfister says. “Here we are with our principal actor standing on the edge of one of the tallest buildings in the world. I think a lot of people will assume that’s CGI.”
“I don’t know what this thing is, exactly,” [Nolan] says, “but I know it’s what I wanted.” He pauses. “Be careful what you wish for!”
OK, Chris, but I’m still wishing for July 18 to get here really fast.
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
What celebrity death hurt the most?
The “In Memoriam” segments in award shows are going to be brutal with the death of so many renowned entertainers recently. We’d already lost Heath Ledger, Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack and Ollie Johnston. Stan Winston, Cyd Charisse and now George Carlin have departed just this past week.
Some of these deaths were completely unexpected, others less so. Still, it always hurts when we lose a gifted artist, whether fate takes them too soon or natural causes take their course.
All these obituaries and tributes in the news lately got me thinking about the impact of a celebrity’s passing. The one that hurt me the most is an easy call.
Some people who know me as a Beatlemaniac may think it was the death of John Lennon. That was certainly a shock, but I was 10 at the time, and I wasn’t heavily into the Beatles before then. For better or worse, it was John’s death that got my Beatlemania going.
The death of George Harrison, too, was incredibly sad, but as much as I didn’t want to acknowledge it, it was well known cancer was getting the better of him.
No, the celebrity death that hit me the hardest was the untimely passing of Jim Henson in 1990, from a severe strep infection. That came like a cruel bolt from the blue, it happened so fast. I had seen him on The Arsenio Hall Show with Kermit only a week or so earlier.
It was already tragic enough that I and many others had lost a childhood idol. It hurt even more when we learned later that Jim’s life might had been saved if only he had gone to the hospital just a little earlier.
Worse still, the Muppets have never been the same. The only truly great Muppet projects after Jim’s death were the TV tribute to Henson and The Muppet Christmas Carol. A succession of increasingly uninspired movies and TV shows followed. I dearly hope the planned revival from the creators of Forgetting Sarah Marshall can restore their luster. Until then, thank goodness for the DVDs.
So which celebrity deaths hit you hard, whether the passing was expected or not? Celebrities who were in the movies would be preferred, but in the interest of broadening the comments, I’ll widen the net and let us all drown our sorrows together.
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment | Categories: Celebrities
Today’s DVDs: Charmers that warrant watching
“Three outta four ain’t bad” is the key saying for today’s DVDs, and two of the four titles were movies that did fairly well at the box office, but deserve to be seen by a wider audience.
Definitely, Maybe: This romantic comedy about a man (Ryan Reynolds) who recounts his past romances with his daughter (Abigail Breslin) gets a little too hung up on its “Guess which one is my mom” hook. It doesn’t need such gamesmanship when three extremely appealing actresses are the girls: Elizabeth Banks, Rachel Weisz and Isla Fisher. Heck, they even make Reynolds seem not so annoying. GRADE: B+
The Spiderwick Chronicles: This family film got a bit lost in the shuffle earlier this year, perhaps because of the glut of fantasy movies, lately, and that’s too bad. This one is better than most, with its terrific effects, a strong story, and a solid cast with Freddie Highmore, Mary Louise Parker and David Strathairn. Its certainly better than the aimless The Golden Compass, and I’d put it on par with Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, because both films have weak spots overshadowed by some great moments. GRADE: B+
Persepolis: This black and white animated film about an Iranian girl forced to flee her homeland was somewhat overrated because its form was so unique. I thought the ending lacked impact, but it’s still is a one of a kind film with many inspired moments. GRADE: A-
And then there’s 10,000 BC, but you don’t want to rent it, much less buy it. Full review. GRADE: D-
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Box Office Hindsight: Get Smart stomps Love Guru
So this weekend was supposed to be the battle of the comedy titans. Call me crazy, but I see only one titan here.
Get Smart pulled off a very solid opening, just shy of $40 million, and it got a B+ from audiences polled audiences polled by Cinemascore, though it’s interesting that Variety notes it got the best grades from viewers 25 and under - the ones least likely to remember the original TV show. Still, I would not be at all surprised if WB tried to make a series out of this, and I’d welcome a follow-up. I’d also like to see the writing and directing be a touch sharper than it was the first time.
Meanwhile, that lapping sound you hear is Mike Myers licking his wounds after The Love Guru opened to a less than worthy $14 million, which means it wasn’t able to beat The Incredible Hulk or Kung Fu Panda. I can’t say I’m sorry to see Myers get taken behind the woodshed. I’m still eyeing him with daggers after what he did to the Cat in the Hat, and if anything The Love Guru looks even worse. The previews had turned me off long before the critics puked all over the film. Quite honestly, the B- Cinemascore seems kind.
Now, a question about The Incredible Hulk. If it’s really so much better than the 2003 film, why is the new movie’s box office performance so far pretty comparable with the older movie? The Incredible Hulk fell 61 percent - not quite as much as the first did, but that’s still pretty steep.
As expected, The Happening took an even bigger tumble, of about 67 percent. That means that among the M. Night Shyamalan’s movies, it will do better than Lady in the Water, but not as well as The Village - and that’s about where it deserves to rank.
Finally, this has nothing to do with box office, and George Carlin didn’t traffic in movies all that much, but I feel I would be remiss not to note his passing here. Looking over his credits, I was surprised to find I best remembered his performance in Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, and I completely forgot he was in Barbra Streisand’s The Prince of Tides. No comedian had a gift for language like Carlin, and that is what I will miss most about him. Read our blogger Mark Fisher to find out more about Carlin’s local connections.
Would you like to see another Get Smart? Did you actually see The Love Guru? And if so, what the heck for?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Get reasonably Smart - and funny
Try this for a new Get Smart catchphrase - “Hit it by THAT much!”
I know, it’s supposed to say “Missed it by THAT much!” But the new movie does the opposite. Instead of just missing, it just hits. Get Smart is solidly entertaining, but it could have been funnier.
My memories of the TV show are pretty fuzzy, but as best I can tell, this movie isn’t exactly the 1960s series writ large. In addition to being a spy spoof, the movie is also a James Bond adventure - and that approach turns out to be a mixed bag.
Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell) is an analyst for the spy agency CONTROL who longs to be a field agent. He gets his chance when the enemy agency KAOS hatches a plot to detonate a bomb in Los Angeles. His partner is Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), who’s none too pleased to be working with an inexperienced klutz. Of course, like so many couples, what starts as animosity ends in amour.
Combining the zany antics of the TV show with the high octane of a 007 movie makes sense on paper, but on film it’s a bit of mess because comedy director Peter Segal (Tommy Boy, 50 First Dates) isn’t skilled with action scenes. He stages a good sequence that’s a nod to the one great scene in Moonraker, the skydiving chase. On the whole, though, the fights and pursuits are a blurry mess, marred by overediting and too many close-ups.
As for the comedy, it’s uneven. Segal makes too many of the jokes obvious, and some are flat-out misfires, like the revelation that Max was once grossly overweight. However, there are some hilarious scenes, such as the escape through a laser-filled room, which 99 navigates quite successfully and Max … doesn’t. A dance-off between the two leads gets increasingly ridiculous, and increasingly funny.
Standout scenes like these work because of the great cast. More than anything else, the actors, especially Carell and Hathaway, keep Get Smart afloat.
Carell doesn’t take the easy way out, playing Max simply as a lovable screw-up. Max is also a bit full of himself, but with good reason - he knows he can be a good field agent, and Carell sells Max’s increasing confidence very well. Hathaway has never had a sexier part. She enlivens every movie she’s in, and if she’s not already on the A-list where she belongs, Get Smart will put her there permanently.
Most of the supporting players are fun too. Alan Arkin is perfect as the put-upon chief, and Dwayne Johnson has fun with his image playing an impossibly perfect agent. Casting Masi Osaka from Heroes as a tech nerd is particularly inspired. Only Terence Stamp draws the short straw, playing a villain who isn’t given enough to do.
As much as I enjoyed Get Smart, I still found myself wishing the movie were as funny as its ads, or as good as its cast. Maybe for the sequel, the producers ought to let the marketing people take a crack at the script.
GRADE: B
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
So I saw ‘The Happening’ …
Despite what you may have heard or seen, M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening is not awful.
However, that doesn’t mean The Happening is a good movie. It’s a misunderstood movie - and I’m afraid one of the people who doesn’t understand it is Shyamalan himself.
The writer-director has said that he tried to make a B-movie, but what’s on the screen doesn’t bear that out. A B movie has second tier actors, a thin, pulpy screenplay and cheap production values that can be used to good effect. The Happening has at least one very well known actor in Mark Wahlberg, and Zooey Deschanel and John Leguizamo are recognizable too. The screenplay isn’t so much thin as it is inconsistent, and the production values, aside from a couple of cheesy effects shots, are top-notch.
So what kind of movie is this? Shyamalan doesn’t seem to know. At times it tries to be a schlocky disaster movie, about people fleeing a weird poison that makes people want to kill themselves.
On the other hand, it also plays as a Hitchcockian thriller, reminiscent of The Birds, wherein people don’t understand why they’re being attacked. But even the Hitchcock references are schizophrenic. There’s another scene toward the end of The Happening that very clearly echoes the climax of Psycho, when Vera Miles finds “Mrs. Bates” in the basement.
The Happening also tries to be a message movie, a morality play about not messing with Mother Nature. Oh, and it’s also Shyamalan’s version of Steven Spielberg’s take on War of the Worlds, in which we view a widespread attack from the viewpoint of a family on the brink of collapse.
Confused yet? I certainly was.
Yet for all of that disorientation, Shyamalan retains a knack for staging effective sequences. Most of the mass suicides are chilling. A scary sequence in which Wahlberg and company try to reason with frightened residents who won’t let them take shelter in their house, shows just how effective The Happening might have been had it stuck with the idea of people becoming rash during a catastrophe.
The Happening is such a weird jumble of genres that it’s actually kind of intriguing to watch it lurch from one tone to another. I can safely say I’ve never seen a movie quite like it. The variety of styles, at the very least, keeps it from being the disaster that Lady in the Water was.
Still, the inconsistency ultimately sinks The Happening. Deschanel, with her offbeat charm, manages to fit in with the oddball shifts in tone. No movie with her can be altogether bad. But a miscast Wahlberg doesn’t seem to know what direction to take, so he goes over the top. That butts up against Leguizamo, who plays his role relatively straight. And for every sequence Shyamalan stages well, there are at least two more that are comically ineffective.
Unlike some other people, I’m not ready to write off Shyamalan yet. I still see enough talent here to believe that he can redeem himself. The Happening is a fascinating mess, but it’s a mess all the same.
GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s opening Friday, June 20?
This weekend marks the great comedy battle: Steve Carell versus Mike Meyers. I’ve seen Get Smart but not The Love Guru. Get Smart isn’t great, but based on the rancid trailers for The Love Guru, I’m hoping Maxwell Smart blows that bearded idiot to bits.
Get Smart: Yet another TV show makes its way to the megaplex, with Anne Hathaway, Duane Johnson and Alan Arkin along for the ride. Review forthcoming Friday.
The Love Guru: Mike Myers tries to convince us that putting on a fake beard and speaking in a silly voice is funny and of itself. I’m not persuaded. I refer you to Harry Knowles review on Ain’t It Cool. Choice (printable) quote: “It is a pregnant woman smoking a cigarette and drinking a Coors Light.”
I’m out.
Arthouses
The Neon in Dayton continues with Son of Rambow and Young@Heart, and adds Helen Hunt’s directorial debut, Then She Found Me, to the mix.
The Little Art Theatre in Yellow Springs opens Son of Rambow Friday. On Sunday, the theatre will screen The Power Of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil, a documentary about how Cuba overcame an economic crisis.
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Cyd Charisse, 1921-2008
(Sigh) We’ve lost another one.
You know, I could go on at length about how great Cyd Charisse was as a dancer, and what a fantastic presence she was in musicals - but I’ll let other folks do that.
Besides, especially for a dancer, the best way to prove greatness is to show - not tell.
So watch this, from Singin’ in the Rain:
And this, from the ever undervalued It’s Always Fair Weather …
And ESPECIALLY this, from The Band Wagon:
Glorious. What a dame, indeed.
Oh, and this picture sums up Cyd’s appeal pretty well too:
Permalink | Comments (6) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Updated: Tributes to FX legend Stan Winston
NOTE: Normally today I would report on the DVD releases, but the likes of Fool’s Gold are not worth expounding upon at length. I will note that Be Kind, Rewind’s release is actually today (my now ex-source had said it was last week) and a second volume of the classic Fleischer Popeye cartoons is out. Beyond that, I feel it is more important to keep my tribute to the late, great Stan Winston front and center.
Stan Winston, a master of mechanical effects in many great movies, passed away Sunday. I had not known he had been struggling with multiple myeloma. He was 62.
Actually, Winston once said he didn’t like to think of himself as an effects technician - he created characters. And the genius of his work makes it impossible to disagree with him.
It’s just as easy to toss around the word “genius” as it is to call work a “masterpiece,” but Winston was a genius who created many masterful works of art. Consider that he made real:
The endoskeletons in the Terminator movies.
The mechanical dinosaurs in the Jurassic Park movies, from the T-Rexes to the ailing triceratops.
The deformed robots and the surly teddy in A.I.
Edward Scisssorhands
And what I would call his greatest achievement, the queen b—-h in Aliens.
And that’s a mere sampling of his work. A look at his voluminous credits reveals he had one of the most impressive resumes in all of Hollywood.
Steven Spielberg, who worked with Winston on many films, offered an especially touching tribute, saying “Stan was a fearless and courageous artist/inventor and for many projects, I rode his cutting edge from teddy bears to aliens to dinosaurs. My world would not have been the same without Stan. What I will miss most is his easy laugh every time he said to me, ‘Nothing is impossible.’”
In an age when filmmakers have relied too heavily on digital effects, Winston’s work continued to lend an air of believability to movies. The outstanding effects in Iron Man, created partly by Winston’s studio, came from a brilliant fusion of old school and new school, which was why they worked so well.
Too often today, with the overuse of computers, people cry “fake!” at visual effects. That adjective never applied to Stan Winston’s characters. The best way to honor him would be to ensure that the effects he pioneered continue to complement digital work, rather than letting CGI accomplish every effect. That way, his achievements will live on, not just in the movies of the past, but the movies of the future.
Ain’t It Cool News has a great tribute to Winston, including quotes from Iron Man director Jon Favreau, director Frank Darabont, makeup maestro Rick Baker, and, most notably, one of Winston’s closest collaborators, James Cameron.
Which of Winston’s characters stand out most in your mind? Put another way, which kept you up most at night?
Permalink | Comments (4) | Post your comment | Categories: Tributes
Box Office Hindsight: More Hulk, less Happening
This weekend’s box office figures tell me that although The Incredible Hulk opened with less money than the 2003 film, Marvel has reason to he happy with the results.
On the other end of the scale, M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening opened better than expected, but there’s another stat that indicates it’s going to drop dead next week.
The Incredible Hulk opened with $54.9 million. The earlier Hulk opened at $62 million. However, polling indicates audiences are quite happy with it, giving it an A- Cinemascore grade.
That probably means a sequel will be in the offing, but I’m wondering how they’ll go about it. I’m sure Edward Norton wouldn’t play Banner again, given all the difficulties he had with Marvel on this movie. So do we get yet another remake/reboot/reimagining/whatever you want to call it? I’m not necessarily averse to a third movie, but I do hope it gets a more imaginative director than Louis Leterrier.
This was one of my favorite takes on the new movie: “‘Hulk. Smash!’ Yes. Hulk. Smash. Yes. Smash. Big Hulk smash. Smash cars. Buildings. Army tanks. Hulk not just smash. Hulk also go rarrr! Then smash again. Smash important, obviously. What Hulk smash most? Hulk smash all hope of interesting time in cinema.”
Meanwhile, over at Fox, I’m sure execs are happy with the $30.5 million The Happening earned, considering various predictors figured it would make $5-$10 million less than that. On the other hand, the Cinemascore audience poll gave The Happening a D - a D! And that’s striking, because Cinemascore polls opening night audiences that wanted to see the movie, and they tend to be kind. Something tells me that Shyamalan’s next movie won’t be sold so heavily on his name.
So questions for you? What did you think of The Incredible Hulk? (Here’s what I thought.) Would you like to see a third Hulk movie?
And for those who have seen The Happening - I didn’t get to see it yet, and now I’m not sure I want to. Is it really THAT bad?
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
The Merely OK Hulk
No, The Incredible Hulk is absolutely not better than the 2003 film - and I expect a lot of people to disagree with me about that.
As much as I defend Ang Lee’s Hulk with Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly (here’s my 2003 review), I understand I’m in a small minority. But I also understand why people didn’t like it. For them, it was too cerebral, too slow, too somber. For me, it was a fascinating film that replicated the look and feel of a comic book better than any other superhero movie. However, I think most people wanted to see more of the Hulk smashing and less of Bruce Banner brooding about his tragic life.
So when I heard about this “do-over,” I expected it to be more of an action flick - and that in itself is fine. I like action movies as long as they’re done well, like Spider-Man 2 or Iron Man - but The Incredible Hulk isn’t even close to being in their league. It’s not even as entertaining as Daredevil.
The Incredible Hulk is all the more disappointing because it begins very promisingly, with Bruce Banner (Edward Norton) living in Brazil and trying to learn ways to control his anger - until soldiers sent by arch nemesis General Ross (William Hurt) track him down. There’s a terrific chase that would fit right in with the Bourne movies, and the Hulk effects are generally improved from the first film.
Once that first big set piece is done, though, so is the movie. Ironically, Marvel Studios has tried to make the new movie more muscular - but in so doing, they’ve made it dumber - not unlike the big green guy himself.
“But a movie about a big green guy trashing stuff should be loud and dumb,” some might argue. Really? A movie about a man who unwillingly turns into a monster sounds like it should have some drama to me, and this film only makes a half-hearted stab at that. Word had it that Norton wanted to give the movie more drama, but Marvel wanted more action and Marvel won.
The problem is, except for the opening, the action scenes aren’t better than halfway decent. Louis Letterrier, the director of the Transporter movies, is capable enough, but he has nowhere near the flair of a Martin Campbell (Casino Royale) or a Jon Favreau (Iron Man).
What attempt the movie does make at drama is undermined by uneven performances. Norton is good, but Hurt phoned in his performance, and I didn’t buy Liv Tyler as Bruce’s scientist girlfriend, much better played by Connelly. And why cast a great actor like Tim Roth, and then throw him away on a boring villain who could have been played by any C-list actor worth his SAG card? A decent episode of the Bill Bixby TV series had more drama than this movie.
The fans have been fawning over this film, but I think they’re overreacting based on their disappointment in the 2003 picture. I’m willing to bet if this Hulk movie had come first, fans wouldn’t have liked it either. Marvel may have added “Incredible” to the title, but they took it out of the Hulk.
GRADE: C+
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
The Hulk - 2003 review
The new Hulk film comes out Friday, but for perspective’s sake, here’s what I wrote about the 2003 version - which I maintain is much better than the new one.
Forget Batman. Forget X-Men. Forget Daredevil. Forget even Spider-Man. The Hulk smashes them all.
“Hulk” (there’s no “the” in the title) is the best superhero movie since “Superman II,” and it’s also the most visually spectacular. Just watching this movie is thrilling in and of itself.
Wait a minute, you might be asking. How can that be when I’ve heard the Hulk looks fake?
Let’s get that burning question out of the way now. Yes, the Hulk does look a little fake — in some places. The long shots sometimes have kind of a jerky video game quality to them, but that’s the same problem that hampered “Spider-Man.”
However, the closer shots of the Hulk and his interactions with real objects and people are very convincing, and that’s not a surprise considering the effects are by Dennis Muren, the visionary who came up with the liquid metal in “Terminator 2” and the dinosaurs in “Jurassic Park,” among others.
His work in this movie isn’t as seamless as the work on Gollum in “The Two Towers,” but Muren still makes the Hulk amazingly expressive, and that’s important in a movie as character-driven as “Hulk.”
Director Ang Lee, who turned the martial arts genre on its head with “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” has done the same for the superhero movie by not actually making a superhero movie per se. He’s made a drama that just happens to have a big green guy as the lead.
In the comic book, scientist Bruce Banner saved a kid from a bomb filled with gamma radiation, which turned Bruce into the Hulk whenever he got mad. The movie, written by Lee’s longtime collaborator, James Schamus, along with Michael France and John Turman, changes the origin for the better, strengthening its emotional impact.
In the movie, Bruce’s father David, also a scientist, performs experiments on himself, trying to find a way to make creatures able to heal wounds instantly. He passes on the genetic mutation to his son. This leads to trauma so terrible that Bruce as an adult (Eric Bana) can’t remember much about his childhood. Even so, the emotional turmoil makes Bruce sullen and withdrawn, much to the dismay of fellow scientist Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly), who has broken up with him.
Bruce unwittingly continues his father’s experiments, but one day, an accident forces Bruce to shield a co-worker from a massive dose of gamma radiation. The hit Bruce takes should have killed him, but Bruce says he actually feels better than ever — not knowing of the creature soon to emerge.
Complicating matters is the reappearance of Bruce’s deranged father (Nick Nolte, looking much like he did in his infamous mug shot) and Betty’s estranged father, a military general (Sam Elliott) who locked Bruce’s dad away.
It’s pretty heady stuff for a superhero movie, and “Hulk” may disappoint viewers expecting wall-to-wall action, especially in the slower, almost meditative first half. But it’s during this part of the movie that the script sets up situations which pay off powerfully later.
“Hulk” has been criticized for not being playful like most superhero movies, but that argument completely misses the point. The story of the Hulk isn’t playful, it’s a tragedy. The story of a man who turns into a monster should not be played just for thrills. This is an emotionally complex superhero movie.
That’s not to say the film isn’t any fun. It’s still a kick to see the Hulk toss tanks around like toys, bend a gun turret so it’s facing the soldier trying to aim it, and throw a rocket back at the helicopter that fired it. The film shows how being the Hulk is liberating and frightening all at once, and that’s a large part of what makes the film so memorable.
But the movie’s ace in the hole is its visual style, especially its editing. Director Lee and editor Tim Squyres visualize some scenes with multiple frames so that the screen looks like a comic book.
But this is more than just picture-in-picture. The frames multiply and glide across the screen, and there are inventive transitions like helicopter blades “wiping” into a different scene. The effect is so mesmerizing it’s almost hypnotic at times. I haven’t seen editing this innovative since “JFK.” If “Hulk” does not win the editing Oscar, it will have been robbed.
The performances are uniformly solid, too. Bana, who played one of the soldiers in “Black Hawk Down,” movingly conveys the bottled-up rage inside a tortured man. Connelly gives Betty Ross intelligence and soul, providing a calming counterpoint to an unstable scientist, much as she did for her Oscar-winning role in “A Beautiful Mind.” Nolte is sometimes a bit of a ham playing the deranged dad, but there’s no denying the intensity he brings to the part.
With so much going on, “Hulk,” like “X2,” doesn’t know when to quit. The climax has so many ideas that it has too many endings, draining the energy and me in the process.
Still, I’d much rather watch a film that suffers from too many ideas than not enough of them. “Hulk,” naturally, leaves the door open for a sequel, and this movie is so fascinating and exciting, I, for one, am anxious to see what the Hulk does next.
GRADE: A
Permalink | Comments (2) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
How often do you go out to the movies?
I periodically promote the benefits of going to the movie theater on this blog, but today I thought I’d take a different tact.
I know very well that people avoid movie theaters these days because of the bad economy, sky-high prices, annoying talkers and texters and such.
But I’m a different animal than most. I go to the movies not only because it’s part of my job, but because that’s just me. It’s what I do. It’s part of my identity being a movie guy. Even before I started reviewing, I would go a couple of times a week. However, I’d like to take the pulse of the people who read this blog.
So I’m going to strip this issue to the basics and let you do most of the talking, I hope.
First, a couple of questions: Just how often DO you go to the movie theater?
And what is the ONE reason above all others that you don’t go more often?
And here are a few questions best addressed in the comments:
When you do go to the movies, what makes you decide to venture out?
How many movies a week do you watch at home?
And
What would get you to go to the movies more often?
Permalink | Comments (7) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
What’s opening Friday, June 13?
Thankfully, Jason and his hockey mask don’t show up in theaters today, so here’s what does:
The Happening: M. Night Shyamalan takes on the environment (?) in his latest thriller. The buzz indicates his career downturn might be continuing.
The Incredible Hulk: I agree with two words in the title. The Hulk is definitely in the movie. And “the” is an appropriate article to use. “Incredible,” though? Well … read my review Friday and see.
And today I will add a feature I’ve too long neglected: What’s playing at the local arthouses starting Friday:
The Neon Movies in Dayton opens Son of Rambow, about a young boy who lives in a religious sect that forbids all pop culture. Then he sees his first movie: Rambo: First Blood Part II. The film has some strong admirers.
Neon and the Little Art Theatre in Yellow Springs are playing Young@Heart, a very well-liked documentary about a senior citizens chorus that sings the likes of The Clash and Sonic Youth. Little Art is also playing Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which I liked quite a lot.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
Can M. Night Shyamalan be saved?
Not so long ago, Newsweek magazine called M. Night Shyamalan “the next Spielberg.” Now some people are wondering if he’s the next Michael Cimino.
Cimino, like Shyamalan, found great success at first, winning an Oscar for The Deer Hunter. Then his ego took hold and made Heaven’s Gate, ruining his career, to say nothing of how it sank United Artists.
Shayamalan’s career hasn’t achieved failure of epic proportions yet, but it is fair to say that the deservedly reviled Lady in the Water was his Heaven’s Gate - the film that severely wounded his reputation as a filmmaker.
Now, he has a new movie, The Happening, coming out Friday, about a mysterious ailment causing people to kill themselves. At first, it seemed like he was retrenching and returning to the sort of suspense thrillers that made his name. But early reviews say the movie is none too thrilling.
Variety writes: “…. the writer-director has scaled back most of his characteristic touches — the contorted horror/fantasy mythology, the “gotcha” twist ending, even his trademark cameo — instead serving up a patchy, uninspired eco-thriller … After an initial bloom of interest, the Fox release will likely wilt quickly in the summer heat.”
The Hollywood Reporter opines, “The movie seems more like a ’50s science fiction film of extreme paranoia or an episode of “The Twilight Zone” that even at a swiftly paced 90 minutes feels padded.”
Online buzz, as it so often is, is particularly nasty. A reviewer on a site called Collider.com wrote: “The Happening is a terrible, terrible movie. I mean, it’s bad on an epic scale. It’s so bad that I can’t possibly tell you how bad it is without understating the point or making it sound like I’m picking on the film. But let me stress: this is not pent-up Shyamalan aggression or a desire to see him fail. This is bad in a jaw-dropping ‘they can’t really be serious, can they?’ kind of way.”
Um …ouch.
But hold the phone here.
Yes, Lady in the Water was terrible. And yes, Shyamalan tends to get lost in his own ego. However, the director does NOT deserve the scorn that some have dumped upon him.
The Sixth Sense? Still works brilliantly. Unbreakable? Severely underrated. Signs? Sure, it has gigantic plot holes, but show me someone who thinks the suspense sequences don’t work, and I’ll show you someone who doesn’t have a pulse. The Village? Doesn’t hold up to repeat viewings, but it still has some strong scenes, and a great performance by Bryce Dallas Howard.
On one of Entertainment Weekly’s blogs, a commenter writes, “M. Night is way up there with Uwe Boll as the worst directors of all time.” Spare me. That’s even more ludicrous than some of the things that come out of Boll’s mouth. Say what you will about Shaymalan’s ego, the man knows what to do with a camera, and anyone who says otherwise isn’t paying attention.
I can’t say whether The Happening deserves the bad buzz or not. Fox has chosen not to screen it in this market, which I think is a mistake. But I also think it’s a mistake for the film’s R-rating to be the center of interest. If all you can talk about is how your film has more blood than usual, that tells me something is missing. (In fairness, the film does have a defender in film blogger Jeffrey Wells, who calls it “unquestionably his third-best film.”)
Even if The Happening tanks, Shyamalan isn’t done. He’s already at work on Airbender, an adaptation of a Nickelodeon property, and I think it’s a good idea for him to tackle something that isn’t entirely his own creation. He’s a stronger director than he is a writer, and this project might help him hone his skills.
Where do you stand on M. Night? Will you see The Happening?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Post your comment | Categories: Filmmakers
How to get movie ideas: Scour TV Guide
Last week I threatened - ahem- promised to post a list of TV shows coming to the big screen, courtesy of the Web site Den of Geek.
Being based in the UK, the site lists a number of British shows I’m not familiar with, so I’ll skip those, but if you want to check out the full list, click here. Here are my reactions to movies pulled from old copies of TV Guide (I’m willing to bet Hollywood studios have crates full of em. How else to explain their development slate?)
Magnum PI: Matthew McConaughey takes over for Tom Selleck. (cringe) The director is Rawson Marshall Thurber, who made Dodgeball, which I liked, but I hope they’re not making Magnum into a goofy comedy.
I, Claudius: This got an acclaimed adaptation from the BBC; the movie is in the hands of Scott Rudin, one of the savviest producers in the biz. I’m optimistic.
Arrested Development: The acclaimed show is due to reach the big screen next year with the cast and crew intact. Hey, maybe I’ll finally check out the show now.
The A Team: It’s being directed by John Singleton, a talented man who really deserves better assignments than easy studio bait like this and 2 Fast 2 Furious. The rumor mill states that Woody Harrelson is Murdock and Ice Cube is BA. Sorry, but there’s only one Mr. T, although I will grant it would be funny to see Cube with a mohawk.
Wonder Woman: This will get made eventually, I’m sure, but not even a truth-wringing lasso will get anyone to tell you any definitive plans. Joss Whedon was on board to write and direct, but the movie’s back in limbo again.
Masters of the Universe: Whatever. Wasn’t one dumb live action movie enough?
Thundercats: What, no Silverhawks movie? Outrageous!
State of Play: I don’t know the show, but I like the cast and director: Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams and Helen Mirren are in the cast, are filming under the we of director Kevin MacDonald, who made The Last King of Scotland and Touching the Void.
The Prisoner: Don’t know much about the show, but I’m up for anything Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins) directs.
ChiPs: Chumps.
Fraggle Rock The Movie: Now this I’d actually like to see. The original TV show was rather ingenious. Let’s just hope the malaise of post-Henson Muppets doesn’t rub off on it. Speaking of which …
The Muppets: The Muppets haven’t had a great movie since Muppet Christmas Carol. They’re being revived by Jason Segal and Nick Stoller, the team behind the very funny Forgetting Sarah Marshall, which ended with an imaginative puppet sequence that was obviously Muppet inspired. Fingers crossed on this one.
The Smurfs: If anything, I see even less of a point to this than I did for Alvin and the Chipmunks. And this will probably be a hit too. Le sigh.
Dallas: I’ve blogged about this one before, and I don’t see how this can work. If the movie makes fun of the show, fans of the show will be mad; if the movie plays it straight, it will be just as overwrought as the show was. Never mind who shot JR - I say shoot the remake - and not with a camera. Betty Thomas directs, but I’m skeptical she can work the same magic with this that she did with The Brady Bunch Movie.
Mighty Mouse: If they can make a movie of Underdog …
What do you think of the list? Are there any TV shows that deserve to be made into movies?
Permalink | Comments (1) | Post your comment | Categories: Coming Attractions
Today’s DVDs: Mild goodness
For the first time in a while, the DVD slate is halfway decent, with the emphasis on halfway. Some of the films here are the kind that inspire the reaction “Eh, it was OK,” another is in the “Cool effects but so what?” category, and the less said about one title the better. There is one film I didn’t get to see that I’d like to check out.
The Bucket List: This hung on in theaters for a good long while, partly because it provides comforting uplift to the very serious subject of cancer. In the process, the movie comes dangerously close to being distasteful (isn’t cancer FUNNY?), but sincere, moving performances from Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman redeem the film. Full review. GRADE: B-
Jumper: A terrific premise about teleportation goes everywhere and nowhere at the same time, with no help from a featherweight script and uneven performances. Handsome location shooting doesn’t help much, nor do some slick effects. Full review. GRADE: C
The Other Boleyn Girl: It wants to be a heavy historical costume drama and a sudsy soap opera, but in trying to be both, the movie is only mildly diverting when it should be riveting. I expected better from a film with this cast. Full review: GRADE: B-
Also out today
Be Kind Rewind: In an era when VHS is all but dead, this comedy about two video store clerks (Jack Black and Mos Def) who make their own versions of hit movies when they accidentally erase the real tapes, seemed like an entertaining throwback. It didn’t last long in theaters, and I ended up missing it, but I’m curious to check out anything directed by Michel Gondry, who made one of my favorite films, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Witless Protection: A Larry the Cable guy movie. How much says the title is accurate?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: On Video/DVD
Kung Fu Panda: Kid see movie, kid do movie
I ran across this odd little story by an Associated Press writer who took his child to see Kung Fu Panda, and - well, what do you know - every little kid in the audience turned into a mini kung fu warrior. Whod’a guessed it?
It’s not exactly news that kids imitate what they see in movies, and I reject the tone of the headline that expresses alarm that the movie may not be for kids. No animated movie worth watching is made solely for kids. I’ve heard it said that if an animated movie is being made only for children, it isn’t worth making at all. I thought Kung Fu Panda, one of DreamWorks’ best efforits, was great fun for audiences of any age.
Besides, the AP writer’s own story eases any fear that Kung Fu Panda isn’t suitable for kids. To reporter Josh Dickey’s credit, he did something that seems to be all too uncommon in child-rearing these days. He decided to actually be … a PARENT.
Instead of merely letting his kid run wild and chucking until he laid someone out flat, Dad took the time to explain kung fu in such a way that it wasn’t just a mindless attack. Therefore, the youngster wasn’t actually trying to hit anyone. Good for both father and son.
Still, we all know that kids are little parrots when it comes to movies. What incidents can you remember when your child imitated a movie - for good or ill? Were there any times when a movie actually taught them something - even if they learned the hard way?
And while we’re at it, I’d welcome any comments on Kung Fu Panda itself. Did you like it as much as I did?
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Moviegoing
‘Kung Fu Panda’ gets a bear hug
Kung Fu Panda kicked me to the curb - and it tickled.
I had hoped the film would be fun, but this vibrant and endearing movie totally blindsided me by absolutely delighting me. Only a few months ago, when I first saw the trailers, I thought, “That’s what DreamWorks is putting out this summer? An elaborate fat joke?”
What a difference a movie makes. This is the animation studio’s best work since Over the Hedge.
I haven’t greatly enjoyed DreamWorks’ animated features. While most of the movies are entertaining up to a point, many of them suffer from emphasizing jokes over characters. The likes of Madagascar, Bee Movie and, to a great extent, the Shrek series, are so thick with pop culture jokes, they’re dated even before they leave theaters. More importantly, the endless, repetitive gags usually smother any heart the movies try to muster.
Kung Fu Panda is a rousing exception, largely because it nails its lead character, a lovable lug named Po (Jack Black) who literally dreams of being a kung fu master in a zippy, stylized 2D sequence created by the same team that worked on the hand-drawn animation in Enchanted.
In real life, though, Po is a slovenly bear who dutifully works in his dad’s noodle business. One day, the local kung fu masters hold a lavish ceremony to reveal the legendary Dragon Warrior. To the astonishment of everyone, the head of the temple, Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), chooses Po.
This does not sit well with the famed kung fu warriors known as the Furious Five, and their trainer, Shifu (Dustin Hoffman), particularly when one of Shifu’s former students, the evil Tai Lung (Ian McShane) escapes from prison. Po seems grossly unsuited to be even a guard, much less a dragon warrior, but Oogway affirms his faith in the bear.
Many an animated film hits audiences over the head with the timeworn moral “Believe in yourself,” but Kung Fu Panda smartly sells it with a strong screenplay by Jonathan Aibel and Glenn Berger. Po is utterly sincere in his love for kung fu; he’s like the world’s furriest fanboy. So it’s touching when he realizes that his idols can’t stand him. Meanwhile, Shifu must wrestle with his own dilemma, haunted by how he trained Tai Lung and unwittingly created a monster.
DreamWorks too often relies on celebrity voices to sell their movies, but Kung Fu Panda is well cast. Black is ideal as Po. Even those who find the actor off-putting might find him endearing here. Hoffman’s wonderful work is so convincing I actually didn’t recognize his gravelly voice at first. The Furious Five, voiced by Angelina Jolie, Lucy Liu, David Cross, Seth Rogen and Jackie Chan are such fun that I was a little disappointed I didn’t see more of them.
The movie tends to go for the obvious joke a bit too often, but that matters little amid a heartwarming story and spectacularly animated fight scenes. Kung Fu Panda is my favorite film of the summer so far, topping even behemoths like Iron Man and Indiana Jones. Ain’t that a kick in the head?
GRADE: A-
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
What’s opening Friday, June 6?
I haven’t done these “what’s opening” entries for about a month because they didn’t feel necessary. With relatively minor competition like Made of Honor or The Strangers, the month of May has been pretty much one blockbuster per week: Iron Man, Indy, etc.
June is where it gets a bit more crowded, with about two major offerings per week. This week it’s animated chop-socky vs. Adam Sandler goofiness.
Kung Fu Panda: It’s hard not to be aware of this movie with its ubiquitous ads, but I will say this is one summer film that fully deserves the hype. Find out what I mean when my review posts tomorrow.
You Don’t Mess with the Zohan: I give Adam Sander credit for at least trying to do something off his beaten path by co-writing with Judd Apatow and Robert Smigel. The plot is certainly zany: An Israeli commando fakes his own death in order to pursue his dream of becoming a hairstylist in New York. Early reviews indicate the movie is less inspired than its idea, however.
Next week: The Incredible Hulk and M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: In Area Theaters
They’re making another one of THOSE?
A colleague of mine pointed to me to a movie site called Den of Geek, which compiled two lists of upcoming sequels. I thought it would be fun to fire back with pithy reactions to list one and list two.
These projects are in various stages of development, ranging from an idea to shooting happening as we read. Some will be theatrical, others will end up on DVD only. Here’s more proof that Hollywood really is that lazy.
In no particular order.
Aliens vs Predator 3: Oh hell no.
The Brazilian Job: Follow up to The Italian Job with Jason Statham, Mos Def, Mark Wahlberg and Charlize Theron all attached, as is director F Gary Gray. Hey, the first one was fun, I actually like this idea.
I, Robot 2: Did anyone really LOVE the first movie?
I Am Legend 2: Ummm …. those who have seen the prior film will understand this question: HOW?
Beverly Hills Cop 4: This is legit. Brett Ratner is attached to direct, and an increasingly desperate Eddie Murphy is starring. I remembered when I looked forward to his movies.
National Treasure 3: Ugh. Pleasantly surprised by the first, unpleasantly surprised by the second. I’m not eager.
Cars 2: The first was Pixar’s least good movie, but I have faith in Pixar.
Toy Story 3: Again, faith in Pixar. After all, Toy Story 2 was better than the first.
Jeepers Creepers 3: Direct to DVD - I hope.
Shrek 5: I knew Shrek Goes Fourth was a go, but this? Shrek the Third was just barely amusing. Can’t imagine what a fourth would be like, much less a fifth.
Night at the Museum 2: This is being shot now, with the Smithsonian’s active cooperation. I didn’t care for the first, but Amy Adams is in the sequel playing Amelia Earhart, so I’m hopeful.
Crank 2: High Voltage: You mean Jason Statham lived after the first one, which I never did see? Never woulda guessed!
Transporter 3: Outta Gas.
Super Troopers 2: Only if the cops make me. And then I would sue for cruel and unusual punishment.
Silent Hill 2: I say Sony has the right to remain silent on any more of these.
The Descent 2: I really liked the first film, but Neil Marshall isn’t directing. Look out below.
The Grudge 3: I’ve got yer grudge.
Ice Age 3: I think this series is overrated, but I have to admit, the early ads are funny.
Ghost Rider 2: I though the first movie should have gone direct to video. This should too.
The Untouchables: Capone Rising: A prequel to the 1987 hit, and Brian De Palma is directing, but the man hasn’t made a truly satisfying movie in years.
The Thomas Crown Affair 2: Here’s the single weirdest credit of the lot: Paul Verhoeven is attached to direct.
The People Under The Stairs 2: The first was a scary surprise. I don’t expect to be surprised by any follow up.
Punisher: War Zone: I believe the first word of the title, at least.
Starship Troopers 3: Marauder: The first sequel was actually decent for direct-to-DVD fare. The writer of the first movie directed the third.
Pink Panther 2: Merde.
Ace Ventura 3: Because Dumb and Dumberer and Son of the Mask turned out SO well.
War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave: Directed by C Thomas Howell? Okaaaaayyy…
Jurassic Park 4: I’ll believe it when I see it.
Scary Movie 5/Saw 5: I say combine the two franchises. Then you can kill both off at the same time.
Rambo 5: Shoot me now.
Jack Ryan 5: Sam Raimi is directing, but I can’t muster much enthusiasm.
Alvin & The Chipmunks 2: Introducing the Chipettes, maybe?
Stigmata 2: Yawn.
Cliffhanger 2: Would be more interesting if it starred Wile E. Coyote.
It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad Mad World: Shouldn’t it be called It’s A Madder Madder Madder Madder Madder World?
The Ring 3: Hasn’t Japanese-American PG-13 horror been over since the second one came out?
Open Season 2: Hey, if they can make 4,597 Land Before Times, why not?
Final Destination 4: The first was a clever twist on the Dead Teenager Movie, but the cleverness has drained each time.
Superman: Man of Steel: This is one I’m actually hoping for. I’m in the minority that really enjoyed Superman Returns.