Movies Opening This Week: It’s Jake Plus 8

To some, it might come off as jarring to see a property that already exists on DVD get a re-release in the theatres, I mean, come on, who’d go watch? But I think with Jake Sully, everyone can find a bit of an exception.

Avatar: Special Edition

Knowing Fox, when there’s something to milk, they’ll most likely milk it to death. So obviously, it shouldn’t actually come as that much of a surprise to see Avatar get a re-release in selected 3D theatres, and according to ClickTheCity, even Philippine 3D cinemas will get the new version too.

 

 

Seriously though, what could possibly be different from the movie everyone watched in 2009, and the new movie coming out this August? Well, it’s 8 minutes of difference I guess. If they put those 8 minutes in the right spot of the already long 2 hour-30 minute run time, then sign me up. And of course, I’m talking about that damn anti-climactic red banshee that was supposed to be so impossible to tame. If they put all those 8 minutes to portraying Na’vi procreating, I’m going to be so pissed.

Still, if you haven’t watched the movie in all its glorious 3D form, you have yet another chance to flock to your nearest 3D enabled theatre, hell, it doesn’t have to be IMAX. For my review of the 2009 release, re-visit it here (and laugh at my Jake Scully typo).

But if you want something else to love, why don’t you just keep…

Going the Distance

A fluffy romantic comedy that just happens to have an “eclectic” cast of very “quirky” characters. It’s one of those, huh? Joy.

But I guess there’s something to be said about the bankability of the Drew Barrymore-Justin Long chemistry, eh?

 

 

Basically dealing with a long distance love affair, Going the Distance is pretty much about Justin Long wanting to keep the relationship between him and Drew Barrymore alive and unscathed in spite of potential external factors and secret lovers that may very well ruin their relationship. With that fear in mind, they try everything to sustain the love. Oh, let me guess, the conflict will be a matter of trust.

For me, this is totally worth waiting for a home video release, if you’re so inclined to watch it, that is.

Maybe you don’t want another rom-com, maybe you just want a good ol’ fashioned Eli Roth horror flick.

The Last Exorcism

About a reverend that goes on his last exorcism job, The Last Exorcism is once again like those glorified “based on a true story” kind of films. Frankly, it looks slightly scary, but on the whole, I just feel “Meh”.

 

 

I’m the guy who laughs when a horror movie somehow gets itself blown out of proportion and much of the knuckle cracking, head snapping, and finger stretching just feel totally over the top for me. I’m sorry I’m like that, okay?

It looks like it will be presented in one of those mockumentary formats that have become the norm for horror flicks these days, but it will also have a hybrid of good ol’ fashioned scripted sequences. Again, “meh”.

Movies Opening This Week: Doesn’t Make You Look Smart

When your name isn’t Earl and you’re not an ex-con, chances are you’ll still go through a lot of bad karma just for winning the lottery.

Lottery Ticket

A black comedy that looks okay, Lottery Ticket involves a guy who wants to get a girl to no avail but suddenly wins the lottery. He doesn’t want anyone to know but, as we all know, secrets don’t quite last long within a tightly-knit community.

 

 

And this is why the winner probably has to go through a ton of weird crap so he can… get laid I guess. Frankly, I’m not very interested in this movie; I wasn’t even paying attention to the trailer all that much, but to its credit, it doesn’t look like it’s trying too hard to be funny, or at least the trailer is serviceable enough not to make that a bit too evident.

As far as comedies go, I guess we could do a bit better.

The Switch

It’s been so long since I last enjoyed a Jennifer Aniston movie. No seriously, when was the last time I enjoyed a Jennifer Aniston movie? Maybe I would if it involved Jason Bateman, who’s always self-deprecatingly funny.

 

 

This time, Aniston wants to be pregnant and is looking for a sperm donor. At a party, her best friend mixes up her preferred sample with his own, and yes, familial chaos ensues. Technically, any suspicions could be solved through DNA tests (which I assume won’t be done because, of course, where would be the drama in that?!) and really, why bother putting out that sperm sample where drunk people could reach it?

While it’s once again familiar territory for Jennifer Aniston, this one looks like it’s going to be a bit… smarter. Maybe a bit funnier too. Whatever the case, this doesn’t look like one of those “hysterical” romantic comedies that resort to a lot of slapstick, this one looks like it’s going to be a bit of a sleeper hit, and I can’t believe I’m saying this, but this might be a good one. Maybe one of Aniston’s better ones in this new decade.

But hey, if you don’t seem to like this one, maybe this one’s more your speed:

Vampires Suck

At first, you’d think that a parody on Twilight, which in itself is like a parody of established paranormal literature, would be awesome. But then you think, there’s YouTube for that. YouTube is a place for pop culture and memes that replace themselves every 5 seconds. The movies, aren’t.

In fact, why can’t the creators of these types of movies just go to YouTube? They’d find so much more love and success there.

When you put anything irrelevant to vampires—Lady Gaga, Alice in Wonderland, and Jersey Shore—to a movie that parodies and apparently spits at vampires, then a lot could be said about how bad the writing must be. The consistency involved is obviously rooted in the non-sequitur, and the main joke of the movie—which is “Vampires Suck”—is most definitely unsustainable. Just because you’re bashing something genuinely stupid and sprinkling in pop culture references that are similarly stupid, doesn’t make you smart.

I swear I could write a 10-page paper about this, but all I’m going to say is that this movie only proves that there are people who think putting the hate on Twilight for the sake of being cool is… well, cool. At least my hate is a bit more justified; I couldn’t stand the book and stopped at the fourth chapter. This one feels like the bashing is manufactured, thus making the entire point of the appeal of this movie void and null.

In short, they want your money.

And speaking of money, can you say "BLATANT JAWS RIP-OFF”?

Piranha 3D

Thank you for that, Hollywood. I really needed something this concrete.

 

 

 

 

 

From the first frame of this thing to the last, it’s obvious what the hell this movie wants to be. But then, I’m pretty sure it’ll be in the same league as Jaws 3D instead of the classic one. Just looking at those fish gives me the creeps, and I’m not talking about creep factor, I’m talking about how fake they totally look. That’s just mind-boggling to see in 2010, but I guess there’s a sacrifice involved when you want to make something in 3D minus the budget of Avatar.

But seriously, how low can this movie go? It’s uninteresting, to say the least.

Hmm, I guess that’s enough negativity for one week. How about something a bit more positive to end on?

Nanny McPhee Returns

The first one was nothing too amazing, but I have to admit, for a kid’s movie it was pretty good. It didn’t quite pander, it didn’t quite sing, and it didn’t quite bore adults that much. Still, I thought the first Nanny McPhee was a one-time thing, so imagine my surprise when a sequel just sprung by my radar.

 

Somehow looking a lot of the same thing, Nanny McPhee Returns, I don’t think, will be any more amazing than the first one. Maybe it’s even an unnecessary distraction as well as an unnecessary sequel. But there it is. Emma Thomspon is also reprising her role as the titular nanny, and is looking quite comfortable with it. I dare say, she’s the one that’s really worth watching in this whole shebang.

I mean, the dancing pigs? Really?

But I guess it’s still deserving the benefit of the doubt. It has so far been enjoying great critical acclaim, with some even saying it’s an improvement overall compared to the first one. Obviously, Mary Poppins has quite spoiled me, so maybe that’s why I can’t see as much of the good of Nanny McPhee as others do. Awfully rendered dancing CGI pigs, or well-choreographed dancing chimney sweepers? You decide.

Movies Opening This Week: Bring Awesome Back

After a few uneventful weeks, Edgar Wright’s much anticipated new movie gets out and brings awesome back to the cinema.

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World

Adapted from a series of comic books, Scott Pilgrim is essentially about a boy who’s in a band and is in love with a girl named Ramona Flowers. But before they can even do anything in solitude, Pilgrim, played by Michael Cera, has to fight off her seven evil ex-boyfriends, all of which have some very different character quirks… which reminds me a lot of the video game No More Heroes.

The movie’s soundtrack sounds great, the visual style distinctively mind-blowing and the fight scenes seemingly epic, but what gets me bothered is the fact that the movie, in the end, just seems very hollow for some reason. I mean, what plot is there other than the seven evil ex-boyfriends? Granted, I’m excited for this movie but I don’t think the actual story in terms of depth will really get me to love it. I have yet to see it for myself, but so far the movie has been getting some really positive feedback, so maybe I’ll change my mind when I actually get to see it.

Also slightly less awesome in the creative sense is the traditionally macho all-star cast of:

The Expendables

When have we honestly last seen Arnold Schwarzenegger in an honest-to-goodness real movie? Well, it’s kind of nostalgic to see him coming back with less of a badass stature and more of an old guy vibe… but this time he’s with forces like Stallone, Statham, and even Jet Li. A lot of big names that scream macho and badass can be found in this one, but the premise is just a conglomeration of ideas we’ve all seen before, but done much better. I mean, the trailers only bank on explosions for heaven’s sake.

This doesn’t really excite me at the least, but it seems to offer enough testosterone to warrant a rent when it comes on home video. For me, at least. I know there will be a guaranteed audience for this, especially considering the huge names attached to the project, but if this happened when each were at the prime of their careers, then will this movie be something truly special.

But the girls still have some cinematic room though:

Eat, Pray, Love

If you tire of the intense nature of explosive blockbusters, there’s this calmer romantic adaptation of the novel of the same name. It’s pretty much a girl travelling around to “let herself go” and “find herself” to “get over a relationship”.

I’m not sure whether the book is any good, but I don’t there’s anything to marvel at except for… India, Bali and Italy, I guess.

Looking at it cynically, it’s pretty much a woman wanting a ego boost, and everyone loves that, because it has the potential to spur inspiration, but aside from the times when Julia Roberts is on the screen, everything feels quite phony. I don’t know why, it just feels too artificial and devoid of any emotion. Kind of like what I feel for Scott Pilgrim, but it' doesn’t even have the distinct visual spectacle (aside from the exotic locales) nor the adequately distracting fight sequences. Maybe it’s just a matter of wrong timing, I mean, a movie like this during the summer blockbuster season, are you kidding?

Movies Opening This Week: The Internet is for Porn

The Other Guys

When Samuel Jackson and Dwayne Johnson can’t do the job, Will Ferell and Mark Wahlberg are on the case. And it’s kind of not funny for me.

 

 

 

 

I admit, the trailer has its moments especially with the explosion thing, but for the large part, I’m not entirely sure how this movie isn’t so much different as, say, Cop-Out.

Step Up 3D

Modern movies are usually retreads of the same ol’ formula. Heck, even Inception, one of the most original movies I’ve seen in years, kind of adheres to the heist film formula. The rules have been laid out years prior, and most of what we see now has been done before. But the key thing to most of the movies we still enjoy today is that they still manage to be fresh, but the Step Up series? Well, let’s just say you could mash that series together and you could still come up with the same damn movie; it’s one of the most blatant retreads ever to exist. But this time, it’s in, like, three dimensions, you know?

Aside from the same flashy dance sequences, what else is there to enjoy to this? It’s like mindless action movies, but the action here comes in the form of dance. Shouldn’t be anything wrong, but come on, this is Step Up. This is just the same thing over and over again. Why can’t it just end?

Heck, the sad part is that this won’t be the last we see of the franchise, because a ton of people will still watch it anyway.

Flipped

A new Rob Reiner film about two childhood friends who seem destined for each other, Flipped is a coming-of-age story that seems kind of whimsical as it involves a girl whose intuition tells her that boy is the one for her, but boy is too hesitant and wants to push her away due to peer pressure. When boy realizes that girl may also be the one for him, girl starts contemplating other men, and so the story goes.

Now that we know all of that, the only thing left to ask is whether they stick together or go their separate ways (or, well, go their separate ways and stick together when they suddenly bump into each other again). Whatever the case, don’t expect Rob Reiner to pull another dinner scene here, I mean, they’re kids, obviously. So it probably won’t be much of an iconic film, but I guess it’ll be watchable?

Middle Men

This last one is pretty much the story of the conception of porn on the internet. Huh, sounds like something you’d do as a last resort because you didn’t get Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay of The Accidental Billionaires. Now known as the much-hyped The Social Network by David Fincher.

Whatever the case, it’s still kind of interesting to see how from dudes living in a basement in 1995, they would be able to build an empire that’s just huge.

It probably won’t be as Oscar-y looking as The Social Network, but I’m pretty much guessing it won’t be the worst damn movie either. That said, I wouldn’t be terribly disappointed if I didn’t see this film anyways.

Inception: The Thinking Man's Action Film

Inception
Starring Leonardo de Caprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Directed and written by Christopher Nolan

Hot on the heels of a multi-million dollar Batman movie, Nolan follows it up with an all-new original story that takes place in a land where dreams can be intercepted and corporate information could be extracted by a group of experts operating under a company. Unfortunately, due to the death of his wife, Dominic Cobb (Leo de Caprio) fails to pull off a job but finds out that rich businessman Saido (Ken Watanabe) is willing to give anything to Cobb under one condition: Cobb needs to do the opposite of his day job and actually implant an idea to a rival company's heir instead of extract it (thus the title) so that Saido's company will win in the end.

What follows is a series of events set into motion that, if you don't follow closely, will continue on regardless of whether you like it or not, whether you can understand or not. But that doesn't exactly mean that the story is extremely convoluted; in fact, the story and its several threads are handled so well that each of them is a uniquely worthy point of discussion.

Nolan doesn't feel the need to pander to his audience and treats them with the respect they deserve, but I think the thing that's getting a lot of positive feedback is the entire second half of the movie, which for all intents and purposes, is awesome. You will care for all its characters and you will know the gravity of the situation, and this is the part where Inception appeals to a lot of people. It's where the thrills come, where all the subplots of the subplots of the subplots in the subplot of the main plot get tied together, resulting in a handsome pay-off.

The key thing in watching Inception is that it isn't necessarily a thriller that discusses the concept of "dreams" in as much detail as you'd think a pretentious movie would, but it's more of a heist movie that involves a cast of endearing characters doing "one last job" so that Cobb's character won't be a wanted man in America anymore. You can screw up a lot of these kinds of films, but the cast Nolan's assembled here is just excellent and pitch-perfect.

Of note is Ellen Page's character Ariadne is basically in almost the same position as us- the unknowing audience, except for the part where she is a gifted architect- and she does an exemplary job at being hesitant, curious and oblivious at first, even though she becomes the voice of reason in later events. Props also go to Joseph Gordon Levitt for being such a badass and Marion Cotillard for turning in what I think is her best performance since La Vie En Rose.

Oh and Leonardo... is a given. He's pretty much the glue that makes us care for everyone in the first place.

At this point it would be hard to talk about the movie without spoiling it and its intricacies. If anything else is of note, then it may well be the cinematography, the sensationally realistic special effects, the emotional depth, the simultaneous visceral and cerebral satisfaction (which has become atypical of Nolan movies), or the bombastic but less than memorable score. Whatever the case, Inception is a movie you must see to believe, with its trailers barely even justifying the amount of epic contained within its package.

Still, don't go in expecting an overly exhaustive breakdown of dreams and excessive philosophical whimsy, just expect a highly intelligent action film that requires you to be glued to its details at all times. Either way, it's a great movie to watch and talk about for days afterwards.

True, Nolan doesn't achieve levels of "masterpiece", but what he does in Inception, he does very well. And we're all the better for it. In fact, its box office performance may well be an inception all its own. The simple idea that an original and highly cerebral film can be profitable is an appealing proposition, and we must expect no less from the studios and the filmmakers.

Rating: 9/10

Movies Opening This Week: Bros Before Hoes

Last week we saw Inception oversee release, and I’m willing to bet that it will stay on top of the box office for a while, especially because of:

Cats and Dogs: The Revenge of Kitty Galore
Never mind the overly unwieldy title, never mind the overly generic plot and somewhat substandard animal CGI, this movie is just a mystery. I mean, is there any reason for it to exist at all? Who gives a crap about this? It’s like Marmaduke all over again, but this time, it’s G-Force with cats and dogs working together. It doesn’t even seem to bring anything new to the table, so I can’t even see the point in wasting time and resources just to make this and cash in on 3D.

But maybe I just don’t get it; I mean, there’s surely a market for this kind of movie, and I just don’t happen to be part of it… but hey, Kenneth from 30 Rock is in it though!

Instead of rambling any more about this insignificant, harmless family movie, I’ll just go and look for something more sappy.

Charlie St. Cloud

Yup, this is pretty much all I’d see from a Nicholas Sparks, but wait! The twist here is that it isn’t written by Nicholas Sparks. Well hey, any movie that wants to be inspirational but isn’t written by Nicholas Sparks is already a plus in my book!

 

But… hmm… something just feels a little out of place for me. So the story’s about these two close brothers who like baseball but one of them ends up dying in an accident and big brother (Zac Efron) can’t let go of him, and so for some reason little brother goes back from the grave and becomes his conscience and imaginary friend. When Charlie meets the girl of his dreams though, he suffers from conflict: should he choose his dead brother or his girl? Bros before hoes?

Whatever the case, the whole affair feels a bit overly sappy and looks as if it wants to cash in on the Dear John crowd, instead of actually being a complex drama about a boy coming-of-age trying to get over the death of his beloved brother and holding on to childhood. The fact that the trailer spills everything there is to care about the plot doesn’t help either.

This is definitely for the DVD crowd.

Dinner for Schmucks

I love Steve Carell and I like Paul Rudd. Is this movie geared for me for once?

Mmm…

No.

Or at least I don’t think so.

 

 

Dinner for Schmucks is essentially a remake of a comedy that is about this guy who wants to get a promotion but before he does he has to go through a dinner meeting with his superiors. Sounds simple enough. But if the dinner involves bringing the biggest idiot and gaining bragging rights if one ever wins, it could pose a bit of a problem for Paul Rudd’s character. Fortunately enough, he literally runs into an “idiot” in the form of Steve Carell and they become “buddies” who Paul Rudd could use so he can pretty much pull off a win and get a promotion. This somehow gets him in hot water with his girlfriend, and well, maybe Rudd and Carell’s characters may even become friends at some point. One thing’s for sure though: I didn’t laugh at the trailer even once. Maybe it’s my crappy sound system, maybe it’s because I sleep at 3 and woke up at 9, but it’s just… not very funny for me.

Perhaps the closest thing to that is Zach Galifianakis… however you spell that guy’s last name.

Movies Opening This Week: In Soviet Russia, Children Adopt You

I seriously cannot remember the last time I saw Angelina Jolie in a major action flick kicking ass by herself (hell, I think it's been 2-3 years) so it comes as a somewhat welcome surprise that the UN ambassador is back in:

Salt
Even if she's in the UN, her role involves an international conspiracy set up by the Russians. Whether she's been framed or not, the authorities are after her due to accusations of being a Russian spy sent to kill the president, and it's a good thing she doesn't have adopted children, nor Brad Pitt, to keep her down.

I've watched an earlier trailer of this movie and frankly I think this one's a bit more exciting, a bit better. I don't know whether it's my current mood that's dictating that but there's something about it that feels both awesome, and just emotionally devoid of danger or risk. It's kind of like Bourne without the thrills.

But really, it's just Jolie in her element: kicking ass and proving herself once again that it only takes a bee-stung lip to be awesome.

While Jolie's back up and kicking ass, Brad Pitt's probably distracting their children with:

Ramona and Beezus
I've never heard of any "classic children's literature" based on those names before. They just sound alien, or maybe a contrived kid-friendly version of the expression "Jesus Christ". Whatever the case, this Selena Gomez vehicle is clearly aimed at the tween market, but I think it's also trying- maybe even a bit too hard- to appeal to audiences other than that.

I've a good feeling that it won't be particularly bad, but I can't say it's interesting either. It's all going to depend on whether the little girl headlining the actual thing (Joel... something or other) will be adorable enough to make it click. I can't see much of that right now, but I have a feeling that it'll just be "adequate". It won't be anything disruptive, it won't do much after its first week at the box office, and I'm willing to bet it didn't cost much either.

I think it would work better on DVD, as a background movie while you're cleaning.

Movies Opening This Week: Just. Watch. It.

Normally, I'd do a little introduction that forms a segueway toward the several few movies seeing release in theaters this week, however, there's really only one movie that's worth watching, and yes, it's...

Inception

I'm going totally barebones on this one. No trailer, no synopsis, hell, not even a poster. All your brain needs is to be open, and functional. Hell, if it's half as good as they say it is, you won't even regret doing anything.

I'm saving you the crime of having to watch the trailer, because I yielded to its awesomeness. Yes, I'm stoked for it, but that doesn't mean you should spoil yourself the details (and... awesomeness) that the movie entails. I mean, wouldn't it be so much better if you didn't know anything about a movie and really, really loved it?

(I'm getting into the new Digg feed thing. Sorry for the inconvenient code: b69e7615b21a4559a989b37e8671bee1)

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Review

Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley
Directed by Mike Newell
Walt Disney Pictures

Much can be said about the fabled history of video game adaptations. The illustrious likes of the now-infamous Uwe Boll to the failed exploits of Milla Jovovich in the increasingly frustrating Resident Evil films are just some of the more notable points of the medium's young history. When Jordan Mechner- the original mastermind behind the famous 2D platformer- announced a movie deal that was struck with Disney for a Prince of Persia adaptation, I was shocked, cautiously optimistic, and indifferent- in that order.

Sands of Time has a lot going for it: Mechner conceived the idea for a more screen-oriented story based on the rather good story of the video game trilogy that inspired it, a rather decent director Mike Newell was at the helm, and Jerry Bruckheimer was backing it seriously with his gargantuan finances. But now, you say, what could go wrong?

Well, it's not that there's anything technically wrong, it's just that everything feels barely correct. It's like, just as long as setpiece A and plot point X was done, the rest wouldn't even matter; it's like the whole crew wasn't even going for anything special or unique despite a high budget.

In short, it's just plain ol' mediocrity on full display.

Good movies are easy to love. Bad movies are easy to hate (or ironically love). Mediocre movies that are aimless and ambition-less? They're not even worth the time. The entire movie is basically Jake Gyllenhaal and Gemma Arterton talking for the sake of talking, battling for the sake of battling, and not rewinding for the sake of staging awkward conflict. True, the sand in the movie's McGuffin- the dagger of time- is limited and thus must be used wisely, but there's not an actual sense of danger and despair over the dagger's potential to destroy the world. Nor is there any danger to the main villain- who is clearly made up to be regarded as such.

And by that I mean Sir Ben Kingsley who makes an appearance here as an uninteresting villain who hires a spy and creates a conspiracy in his brother's kingdom just so he can claim the throne. At first people trust him, but come on, he wears evil villain make-up, clearly someone in the palace should at least have an uneasy amount of suspicion around him. Hell, with eyeliner so sinister, the only thing that would make the guy even more evil is if his role was just given to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In a move of uninspired, badly sequenced flashbacks, his motivation is explained, in a manner as if to say, "Well hey, at least our villain has some kind of motive!" and the way that the hero just formulates this motive is just full of B.S. for it feels as if he just pulled it out of his buttocks.

I have no apprehension about giving a name to the usually nameless hero, but I do have to exercise a bit of restraint with the casting choice of a clearly white American. Jake Gyllenhaal, usually a pretty decent actor, is kind of uninteresting and not charismatic here. He's only "adequate enough" for the role and is simply a constant reminder for the film's penchant to settle for mediocrity. Fine, maybe he did do his own parkour, but whenever he does anything related to a stunt, it just appears unbelievable, because the film also has a thing for constantly using slow-motion and fast-motion that it isn't even funny. Hell, it's not even like Zack Snyder who uses much of his excessive slow-mo in an elegant way, it's just slow-mo for the heck of slow-mo. That, in addition to motion blur, makes things look unconvincing... as if the movie wasn't such a huge green screen already!

Also a bit of a negligible character: Tamina. She's the princess that's attached to Dastan's journey to guard the dagger, and she's played by Gemma Arterton. Unfortunately, she just can't plain act. There's nothing endearing, likable, or charming about the character, because there's no personality to even like... unless beauty is a personality. Last time I saw a movie with a person who used her beauty as her personality, it involved robots with balls.

If there's really anything to like about this movie, it may well be the cinematography. There are some moments in the film that are pretty well-shot, and the apparent production value makes the film look initially epic overall. Some scenes suffer from a lack of polish in the special effects department, but overall, the movie looks good enough aesthetically.

Maybe there was a benchmark that was observed during the making of this film. Maybe the producers only settled to make the film "tolerable enough" or "excellent enough for a video game movie". Granted, this film is head and shoulders above much of the Street Fighter's and Alone in the Dark's out there, but as a self-contained, classic swashbuckling adventure film? It just doesn't match up, not because it's bad or unentertaining, but because it just doesn't aim high. It's more than watchable, but it doesn't get any more than just that.

Rating: 6/10

Movies Opening This Week: Dark Side of the Moon

It's hard to classify anti-heroes. Are they just badass heroes? Protagonists who don't happen to care about fatalities? Guys who don't give a crap but suddenly save the world? Or is an anti-hero like the guy in...

Despicable Me
Steve Carell stars as a supervillain named Gru who happens to be the movie's protagonist, which somewhat confuses me. I mean, Gru wants to take over the world but in the process he'll have to eliminate other threats who are, on their own, threats to the world as well, so he's saving the world so he can conquer it. But then again, Gru fails a lot of the time, so the only thing he'll have to do without much resistance by other supervillains is to... take the moon.

Yeah, you heard me right.

Fine, fine, it's an innocent enough motive for evil. Good for kids since it doesn't involve much death, since well, it's just the moon. Hell, if Gru wants to establish his own Death Star, maybe getting the moon would have a point, but maybe I'm just overthinking things.

Whatever the case, the movie looks decent enough. Okay, but not great, not even good. It's probably more about the money that's gonna be raked in by the 3D, and the stuffed toys (minions, duh) and so on and so on. Who knows though? It might be better than the trailers make it out to be. I mean, for me, the premise is too much like a Jackie Chan movie, if you know what I mean. Hell, maybe even a Vin Diesel or an Arnold. Case made short: the plot is a bit too familiar. But maybe, just maybe, the movie might actually be good... although the last few Ice Age's weren't too good.

Predators
What does look good is this movie, produced by Robert Rodriguez, and it's pretty much about a few people who have to survive the onslaught of the titular monsters, or die. The cast is rounded up with some pretty good names: Laurence Fishburne and Adrien Brody, especially. I'm a bit uneasy about Nimrod Antal in the director's chair, but I'm pretty sure Rodriguez' script and creative control will do the trick and hit a home run in the reinvention of what may well be a potential new franchise.

The movie feels visceral, and the trailer is actually pretty well-cut together. It actually got a few chills down my spine for me, so it's hard not to be excited about this cool-looking movie. I recommend staying tuned for this one.

Movies Opening This Week: Supernatural Love Triangle

"Why are you so against me to come with you?" said Bella Swan.

The Twilight Saga: Eclipse
Come on, I don't want to beat around the bush. This looks like crap, although I have to admit, it looks like the strongest entry to date.

Of course, you can't really say much about the word "strong" in this context.

But really, what else is there aside from the much-shown vampires vs. werewolves setpiece that will actually interest the fans? You can't really fault Summit for opting to show more of the same staring (oh wait, that's Stephenie Meyer's fault too) but the brooding is just tiring to watch. Fine, fine, I've avoided watching the so-called "saga" like the plague, but I'm conscious enough about the pop culture to know that, yes, Twilight's main attraction is staring... and shirtless Taylor Lautner.

To say that Robert Pattinson is even a marketable face is debatable, but really, I can't find anything fresh and new about this installment. I mean, yes, the Harry Potter series is sort of the like this, but at least that series introduces new concepts in its world regularly that keeps it somewhat fresh (eg, Triwizard Tournament in Potter 4, Umbridge in Potter 5, the Inferi and Horcruxes in Potter 6).

I propose that there should be a bold new direction in Breaking Dawn, which as I've heard is already full of explicit content that isn't as fit to market to the tweens. Why not push it further and create an even more complicated supernatural love rectangle by putting that Dakota Fanning Volturi character in the mix. I mean, come on, they've done it before. It won't be exposed in the trailer, and people will be surprised. Word will spread and a whole new audience will be introduced. Even if that new audience will be an audience of pervs, Summit will earn more money, Twilight will get more publicity, and everyone will be scrambling to make a contrived sequel to Breaking Dawn. Man, I should be working at Summit.

To cleanse the palate, let's go for an animated ride with monkeys... in space.

Space Chimps 2: Zartog Strikes Back
I never knew there was a market for a sequel to Space Chimps but, well, there it is. In theaters and not in home video (where it really belongs).

After wasting time rambling on about the politics of Twilight, I can't really say anything about this one anymore. I'm just baffled to see that the first one even made a profit. And they had the creative funding to develop a new character. And it's in 3D.

Maybe... it's just because it's an underwhelming new release compared to, I don't know, a PIXAR FILM?!

Whatever the case, people will become indecisive by the inherent awesomeness that the real alternative to Twilight this week will offer, and that alternative is:

The Last Airbender
I don't mind removing "Avatar" from the title, even though people will keep saying that title instead of "The Last Airbender". Why? Because a lot of people are really fond of the Nickelodeon animated series that came before it.

But the more significant fact that springs from the movie is that M. Night Shyamalan, a once-respected director, might actually become legitimate again. Yes, yes, there's a lot of racebending happening with the cast behind the scenes, but a lot of movie looks visually faithful to the source material nonetheless, and it's still an epic summer movie whichever way you look at it. In short, it will have a pedestrian story but a magnificent aesthetic. Despite the apparent choice of style over substance, this is still gearing up to be a great summer movie to watch out for.

And hey, if the story really is good, then that's a huge double whammy for everybody concerned.

Although the fact that it's being upconverted to 3D at the last minute really worries me...

Facebook movie chugs along

David Fincher's follow-up to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a bit less whimsical and much more grounded in reality. A glorification (and likely stylized) look at the creation of what we now know as Facebook is most definitely chugging along at a fast rate, and the rumored $47 million dollar movie will star a few notables like Jesse Eisenberg and Justin Timberlake.

In case you haven't caught wind of any news about this film, it's called The Social Network.

Based on a book by Ben Mezrich called The Accidental Billionaires: The Founding of Facebook, a Tale of Sex, Money, Genius and Betrayal and adapted by none other than The West Wing's Aaron Sorkin, this interesting movie set in modern times is shaping up to be a pretty darn exciting thing to look out for.

It will cover the happenings that revolved around the creation of the aforementioned social networking site, as well as the exploits that Eduardo Saverin and Mark Zuckerberg were involved in. Hey, they're two kids who wanted to get laid. Now they're on top of the world.

You can read more about the film's premise in the source of this news piece: Slashfilm.

Movies Opening This Week: Scientologist Stalkers

Ahh, Tom Cruise. When did we last see that guy?

Oh yeah, he was Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder 2 years ago. A character now being developed in to a movie by Ben Stiller and Paramount.

In the interim though, what was he doing?!

Knight and Day

Whatever it was, it must’ve been quite similar to the premise of Knight and Day. He sat on a plane, stalked a girl, and shot guns all for the sake of Scientology. Plausible enough, don’t you agree?

 

 

That aside, I think this looks better than Killers. Also, I like Cameron Diaz more than Katherine Heigl, so maybe this is purely subjective conjecture.

Also, the action scenes look pretty decent, but the trailer just spoils a bit too much for comfort. It isn’t marketed as a particularly conventional rom-com because in essence, it feels more like Duplicity minus the empowered female agent character of Julia Roberts.

A little bonus is the somewhat conspiratorial vibe they’re going for; there’s something about it that feels as if it will spring a plot twist that’s LOST on you.

Ha! Get it?

Uhh…

Ba-dum-tish!

Grown-Ups

Adam Sandler and his posse of man-children (and notably, Rob Schneider and his first major movie since… who cares?) are old pals who meet up 30 years after they split. Since they’re wearing mourning attire, they probably shot it right after Chris Rock finished his Funeral movie, and man does this movie look insanely lame!

 

It’s either they’re saving the best gags for people to become surprised with, or it just means that the presence of Rob Schneider is but a bad omen to a potentially good, if not safe, premise. There will be obvious fat jokes, fart jokes, black jokes, and MILF jokes all around.

If you really want to watch a comedy though, get Get Him to the Greek or Cyrus, because while this movie’s jokes are probably legion, those two Jonah Hill movies are probably actually funny. Quality beats quantity. Two beats four. The works.