So, Sam, you started at April 17 but not April 10? I'm actually way stoked for Observe and Report. The first trailer I saw for it was surprisingly funny in parts, and a ton of people on the Net are buzzing that it's an incredibly dark and weird movie. Unlike you I do like Seth Rogen quite a bit, and this movie looks promising.


> April 17 - Crank: High Voltage

> Needless to say, my hopes, therefore, are not high for this sequel, which
> alters its premise slightly. Now he's got a battery powered heart that needs
> constant jolts of electricity to keep it running. Again: great idea for a
> *parody* of an action movie, but not an *actual* action movie. The sequel can
> be good only if it knows what it is -- *and* has enough creativity to expand
> the joke from a synopsis into 90 minutes.

There is a machine somewhere in Paris, controlled by Luc Besson, that just cranks out European action movies. Besson can turn it to "Besson-esque" and get a movie like Taken or turn it to "Statham" and get another Transporter flick. This is the only explanation for how there are like fifteen Statham and/or Besson movies each year.

At least crappy American action movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take 18 months to make!

> April 17 - Thick As Thieves
>
> Morgan Freeman is the veteran thief on one last job. Antonio Banderas is the
> young hot shot. The Russian mob fits in somehow. I feel like I've seen this
> before.

But does Freeman provide unearned gravitas via a voiceover track?

> April 24 - The Soloist
>
> This was originally slated to open in 2008. There was a lot of anticipation
> for this third film by director Joe Wright, as the other two (Pride and
> Prejudice and Atonement) were Oscar bait. When the film was postponed, the
> media went wild speculating that the film wasn't any good. This is inevitably
> what happens when a film doesn't turn out the way the distributing studio
> hopes -- for example, a film gets booted out of Oscar season -- but there are
> lots of other reasons a film might be delayed, too.

I hope the movie is more than the trailers make it out to be, but I had this pegged as garbage based on the first trailer and the move didn't help. It looks like a total paint-by-numbers Oscar grab. Guy with mental disability? Check. Disconnected writer learns to connect with other people through the power of art? Check. Oscar winners / nominees in the leads? Check. Dealing with weighty themes in the most conventional ways possible? Check, check, check.

> April 24 - Obsessed
>
> Fatal Attraction was not a great movie, but it hit some kind of nerve. It
> probably wasn't the first movie to do that kind of story, but it surely wasn't
> the last: "Obsessed" is the next in a line of countless films that have
> emulated it. They succeed or fail mostly on the strength of the actors.
> I'm not excited about the actresses, Beyonce Knowles and Ali Larter, although
> the former was unexpectedly wonderful in Dreamgirls. But it's great to see
> Idris Elba, a stand-out among stand-outs in the HBO series The Wire, snag a
> leading role in a feature film.

WHERE WALLACE AT, STRING!? WHERE WALLACE?

And I agree, Idris Elba gives probably the best performance among a bunch of great performances on The Wire. He deserves better. This movie looks like something that should be airing late at night on Cinemax.

> May 1 - Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
>
> Matthew McConaughey sure loves the niche he's carved out for himself. Is he
> unable to try something different, or merely unwilling? Still, there's no
> reason this movie about a cocky bachelor learning to love will be any worse
> than any of his other movies about a cocky bachelor learning to love. But
> doesn't the whole Christmas Carol thing mean this should have been released
> at Christmastime?

Remember when McConaughey was a promising young actor? He had that memorable role in Dazed and Confused, and then really elevated his parts in movies like A Time to Kill and Contact. He seemed like he could really be a classic movie star, oozing charisma, and able to bring a unique sort of energy to lead roles. Has he done anything besides sleepwalk through a performance since Frailty in 2001?

There's an interesting corollary with his Fool's Gold costar, Kate Hudson, who also had a breakout early performance in Almost Famous and then went on to do crappy romantic comedies. So sad.

> May 8 - Star Trek
>
> This may be a good movie. But in recasting the original characters instead of
> creating new ones, it has steepened, not smoothed, the slope it must climb.

Yeah, maybe. But when they have tried new characters, like that show Enterprise, nobody watched. Star Trek is a weird franchise that hasn't really been that successful at selling audiences new crews of characters (I think it worked with Next Generation but not the other three shows), despite the fact that half of the allure of the franchise is its gigantic universe to play in. But mass audiences seem to like the characters, and not the universe, so I get it.

> May 21 - Terminator Salvation
>
> Will this be good? Not a chance. It breaks two unbreakable rules:
>
> 1. You can't make a Terminator movie without Arnold Schwarzenegger.
> 2. You can't make a good movie with McG.

Goooooooood fooooooor yoooooooou!

Oh, you were just checking the light? Well, how was it!?

Regardless of whether this movie is worthwhile, its production did get us the funniest sound clip in years. Bale going off on that DP was a million shades of hilarious awesomeness.

> May 29 - Up
>
> I keep waiting for Pixar to screw up (no pun intended), and they keep not
> doing it. Not only have their two most recent films, Ratatouille and WALL*E,
> been their two best (and the fact that that is arguable is that much more to
> Pixar's credit), but they've rubbed off on the Disney animation unit, too.

I feel like Pixar is my one oasis in the summer desert of garbage. I may have to go see Star Trek and Terminator and Transformers and Wolverine (and sadly I will go pay to all of those movies), but at least I get my Pixar movie.

> June 5 - Land of the Lost
>
> Here, however, is a less welcome return to a cult hit of the past. The
> television show Land of the Lost is inextricably part of its time. I saw it
> at just the right age (five or six) when men in lizard suits were utterly
> terrifying. If you know what I'm talking about, you'll agree that this movie
> is wrong, wrong, wrong. If you don't know what I'm talking about, why would
> you care about it in the first place?

> I've always had fond memories of the show. While most of what I watched at
> that age is forgotten or reinforced by later memories, Land of the Lost stands
> out as something special. But I never saw it again after age six.

See, if you had seen it again, you would remember it as one of the worst shows ever put on television. It is unspeakably awful. I too liked it as a kid, but kids are stupid. That's why they're kids.

I actually think this is a fine idea for a movie: it's an excuse for Ferrel to riff on some CGI dinosaurs or whatever. The trailer is mildly amusing.

Also, a weird bit of nonsense trivia: the two kids in the show are named Will and Holly Marshal. In Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Ferrel played a federal wildlife Marshal Willenholly (say it out loud). So I guess it proves Kevin Smith is psychic, or something.

> June 12 - The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3
>
> This is a remake of a movie from 1974 that starred Walter Matthau and provided
> the basis for the color-based codenames in Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs.
> The movie is coarse and uneven but shines in spots. In other words, the best
> kind of movie to remake. Remakes, as I find myself saying a lot in these
> movie preview posts, are not inherently bad: the problem is that the wrong
> things get remade. There's no point remaking something that cannot be
> improved upon. But this material could be the basis of a great modern thriller,
> especially with such iconic powerhouses Denzel Washington and John Travolta
> in the leading roles. Travolta looks shockingly grungy in the previews.

No, no, no, no. You and I cannot disagree more on this. Travolta, an iconic powerhouse? Maybe in 1978 or 1995, but in 2009 he's once again pretty washed up in my book. And replacing Robert freaking Shaw? One of the ultimate movie badasses?

> Tony Scott is the director, so expect it to be unnecessarily hyper and
> frenetic.

What helps make the original so awesome is its lowkey '70s vibe. It is uneven and gritty and simple. Tony Scott + Travolta <> simple and gritty. Denzel is a pretty good pick, though.

I'm not even sure how a modern revision of this story can work. The original story is about an ordinary NYC transit cop who has to go toe-to-toe over the radio with a group of subway hijackers. That worked in 1974. But how does it work in 2009, when I expect a subway hijacking to be immediately handled by the feds and DHS? It's sort of a darkly comic element in the 1974 version that nobody knows how to respond to this sort of situation, and City Hall is paralyzed, leaving the Matthau character to sort of handle it himself.

> June 24 - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
>
> Michael Bay's first Transformers movie was better than I expected it to be, but
> come on. It was not great or lasting entertainment. Still, it's not like
> Michael Bay would have made something great if a Transformers sequel had never
> gotten a green light, so it's hard to bemoan this.

I actually had a decent time at the original Transformers, and like you I enjoyed it more than I expected. So this isn't entirely unwelcome. It's rare that we get summer movies that are great or lasting, so "not painful" is usually good enough for me.

> July 1 - Public Enemies
>
> The sets and costumes in this movie look terrific, and Johnny Depp looks right
> at home in his 30s gangster role. Michael Mann is usually great for me (Heat,
> The Insider, Collateral) although I despised the charmless Miami Vice movie.
> This looks like a return to form, something with actual characters in it.
> The cast list is a parade of outstanding performers and colorful character
> actors that seem like they were born to appear in a 30s gangster flick:
> Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard, Billy Crudup, Emilie de Ravin,
> Leelee Sobieski, Giovanni Ribisi, Stephen Dorff, and Lili Taylor.

Unlike you -- and everyone else on the planet -- I dug the Miami Vice movie. It's a sort of essence of Mann, all mood and atmosphere and action. It is disconnected from the characters, and it's slow and plodding at times, but I still enjoyed it.

But this does look pretty great.

> 3D is a
> fun gimmick, but it's a distraction from real storytelling. Moreover, most of
> the 3D we're seeing now desaturates colors and blurs sharp lines. Ironic,
> that 3D can't even deliver everything 2D does!

THREE DEE IS AWFUL. Do we really have to rediscover this every 25 years? Awful awful awful.

It's like this: binocular disparity, or the stereo effect, is just one way we have of measuring depth. That's all 3D does, is present each eye with a slightly different image to give the illusion of depth.

But try an experiment: cover one eye. Are you still able to discern how far away things are? Does the world still seem real?

Yes? Congratulations, you are also able to use perspective (things that are closer seem bigger) and depth of focus to determine depth! Both of those are things we can project on a 2D surface just fine.

Now let's all agree to stop putting on stupid plastic glasses.

> July 17 - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
>
> The funniest thing ever occurred late last year. It was the reaction of
> whiny Harry Potter fans when they heard this was being postponed from the
> Christmas season to the following summer. Warner Bros cruelly destroyed many
> lives that day. Fans hated Warner Bros forever and swore to boycott the film.
> We'll see how many don't show up for this.

Yeah, this was so weird. They all know how it ends, right? It's not like it's delaying the conclusion to the story.

> For now, I blame the director, David Yates, who unfortunately is going to
> return to direct all of the remaining films in the series. I shudder to think
> that my penultimate favorite book of the series will be done by him rather than
> Cuaron or Newell. Still, there is hope: the other reason the fifth movie
> might have fallen short was the absence of the series' regular screenwriter,
> Steve Kloves.

You and I disagreed when this came out, but I still think the problem with Order of the Phoenix was its screenplay and not its director. Everything I've ever heard you upset about -- too rushed, not enough plot development, etc. -- are screenplay faults. I guarantee that WB did not hand an inexperienced director like Yates the reigns of the franchise and say, "Do whatever you'd like!" I'm sure he had a script given to him and was told to film it.

And I still think he did an adequate job. There is nothing wrong with the direction (though, like you, I couldn't follow the final action sequence so maybe it was poorly constructed, I couldn't tell due to EXTREME BLURRY VISION!). The performances are all fine as ever, the look of the movie is solid, and stuff like the constant montage sequences actually work OK in my opinion. While I question their use at all, I'm sure those were written into the script, and they come off probably as well as they could.

Maybe the problem is without a "name" director like Cuaron or even (shudder) Columbus, the studio has too much control and got what they undoubtedly wanted: a shorter script that moved along quicker.

> (The other problem I had with the fifth movie was avoidable: I saw it on an
> IMAX screen, which had the climactic fight at the end in 3D. The 3D process
> was *horrible*: dark, blurry, and misproportioned. My emotional involvement
> with the film, already on shaky ground, shattered, and it was a relief when
> I could take the glasses off again. I recommend against the IMAX 3D version
> of the next movie.)

Same. But I really like the IMAX format for big movies, so it's a shame I'll not be able to see a 2D-only IMAX presentation.

> August 7 - Julie and Julia
>
> Nora Ephron directs this biographical film starring Amy Adams and Meryl
> Streep.

Is this a remake of Jules and Jim? I hope so!

> August 7 - G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra
>
> Transformers made some money, so, hey, how about a G.I. Joe flick? Stephen
> Sommers is the man behind the camera. Sommers made a good movie (The Mummy)
> once.

Wow, this is getting dumped in August? Bad sign. Not that there was much of a chance that this would be good, but still.
> August 21 - Inglourious Basterds
>
> Who turned Tarantino into a parody of himself?

Wasn't he always?

> Remember Pulp Fiction and
> Jackie Brown? Those had all of Tarantino's sharp, extreme style, but they were
> also stories about real people. Since those days, he's dumbed himself down.

I don't know if that's entirely fair. He also did Reservoir Dogs before either, and his earlier screenplays (e.g. True Romance) were not terribly nuanced. If anything, I think Jackie Brown is an anomaly among his movies. Pulp Fiction is sort of a real story about real people, but it also has the gimp and the Wolf and all kinds of craziness.

> Yes, I liked Kill Bill. I even liked Death Proof, when many did not. But
> Tarantino can do better. Both Jackie Brown and Death Proof recapture the
> spirit of early 70s B-movies, but only the former transcends it.

I don't really get this. Does Kill Bill (especially Volume Two) not transcend the chop sockey flicks he's riffing on? Doesn't Volume Two even sort of stop being a kung fu movie at some point and turn into a western or something?

Kill Bill has a very real story at its core. Its characters -- at least Bill and the Bride -- are probably better fleshed out than most of the characters in Pulp Fiction, and the ending of KB is very emotional and moving. It's probably among the most heartfelt and serious things QT has ever done, right up there with Jackie Brown.

I agree that Death Proof doesn't really transcend its genre, but I don't think it was supposed to.

> With this film, I was hoping Tarantino would hark back to the great war movies
> of the late 60s and early 70s (The Dirty Dozen, The Guns of Navarone, Where
> Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes) and transcend that genre as Jackie Brown did with
> blaxploitation. The trailer dashed those hopes in one fell swoop. It looks
> like we're really going to get "300" with speeches and swastikas. Not a brain
> in its ugly little head.

I think we can agree that's *probably* not the movie QT made. I know that when I saw Jackie Brown, Kill Bill Vol. 2, and Death Proof, I was completely surprised at the movie I actually got. The marketing for those movies did not really prepare me for the actual experience (KBV2 really threw me, given that it was allegedly the second half of a movie, and I'd seen the first).

That said, I actually did like the trailer to IB. I just doubt that it's overly reflective of the movie.

> Although the trailer fills with me disgust, realistically there's a good chance
> I'll like this. But it kills me to know how great Tarantino can be and see him
> continually settling for cheap thrills when he could be telling great stories.

He's made Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, Kill Bill (1 & 2), and Death Proof. You grant that PF and JB are great stories, and I argue strongly for KB's for inclusion in that list. That puts him at 3/5 (or 4/6 depending on what you do with KB). I don't know why you're so concerned.

(And as far as "cheap thrills" go, Death Proof was incredibly exciting. It was exactly what it intended to be, and the turnaround really threw me for a delightful curve.)

> August 28 - Final Destination: Death Trip 3D
>
> Here's a case where the 3D can't hurt.

But will we get a yo-yo flying directly at the camera? When will somebody rerelease my beloved Friday the 13th: Part 3D? I long to see that yo-yo in 3D, the way the movie's director intended.

Stephen