> April 16 - The Punisher
>
> I'm as uninterested in this as in Hellboy. The resurgence in popularity of comic book movies is causing desperation in a lot of studios. As with Hellboy, does anybody other than comic book fanatics care about this? Maybe it'll draw a secondary audience from starved action junkies who can't wait for the summer to start in earnest.

One of the taglines for this movie is "The punishment begins April 16th". As Don Monkey said, "yes it does". It might even be worse than it was with Dolph Lundgren.

>
> April 23 - Man On Fire
>
> Denzel Washington teams up with director Tony Scott for a revenge thriller. Washington is almost always watchable, but the material screams retread, retread, retread.

And that is too bad, because he really is a great actor. This might be a bit better than the last Washington film. Was it "out of time" or some such? Pointless.

> April 30 - The Laws of Attraction
>
> As far as I can tell, this film won't stray a whit from the tried-and-true romantic comedy formula. Only the cast changes from one to another, and the remarkable thing about it all is that a little intriguing casting is all it takes for these to work. This time it's Pierce Brosnan and Julianne Moore, which is exactly that. I keep hoping one of these things is going to forge some new territory, but mostly I'm happy if the writing has some cleverness to it.

I have only ever really liked Julianne Moore when she is acting in serious roles, or devious ones (like An Ideal Husband). Even in The Big Lebowski she was strange, not funny. I don't know if I would like her in this, especially opposite Pierce Brosnan?!

But, it might be clever as you hope, in which case it could be redeemed. Here's hoping.

>
> May 7 - New York Minute
>
> The Olsen Twins in a slapstick farce. I'm such a huge Olsen Twins fan, I even swiped one of the poll questions they had on their web site and used it on mine. ("WHAT IS THE ONE THING YOU CAN'T LEAVE HOME WITHOUT? LIP GLOSS, HAIR BRUSH, OR MINTS???")

How could this not be good?

>
> May 7 - Van Helsing
>
> Now here is where it's at. Somehow it was inevitable that someone would make a Van Helsing movie where Van Helsing was younger, buffer, and armed to the teeth -- monster exterminator, extraordinaire. He takes on not just Dracula, but Frankenstein and the Wolf Man, much like Abbott and Costello memorably did in 1948. Sacrilege? Maybe, but remember that director Stephen Sommers previously committed similar atrocities against Imhotep, with wildly successful results. Let's just hope Van Helsing is more Mummy than Mummy Returns.

Don Monkey and I disagree about this one. I think it looks pretty good, and he's not sure if the movie's target audience is restricted to White Wolf fans and LARPers. I don't know about that, but I vastly prefer movies in which vampires and other monsters are killed, not idolized like they have been in recent films. Vampires are not cool.

"Oh, wouldn't it be great to be a vampire?" "No, it wouldn't, Azrael Abyss"

*Stake*

>
> May 14 - Troy
>
> Wolfgang Petersen can be fantastic with intimate action movies, and I suspect he'll be as successful keeping a grand epic personal in scope. The Iliad is a great enough story that even bad movies about them can almost be compelling: witness, for example, the poor yet very watchable Helen of Troy miniseries from last year. "Troy" has spectacular promise, particularly with its cast, which ranges all the way from Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom to Peter O'Toole and Julie Christie. The trailers suggest it could go overboard on spectacle, but it all depends on how able the movie's tone is to sell it.

It is really too bad about that miniseries. I used it in my English 10 Honours class when I taught parts of The Iliad, and the first half or so was great. That promise trailed off when the fighting in Troy began. I loved Theseus; I am not sure who played him. Agamemnon and his wife were compelling as well. As for the rest...

Anyway, a very good movie about Troy would be fantastic for me. I, too hope that it centers on character and keeps a personal scope. The war, even in the Iliad, is really just a setpiece.

>
> May 21 - Shrek 2
>
> Expect this to be ever bit the hit that the original was.

Somehow I doubt it, actually. I just don't see why this movie was made, except that it is "Shrek 2: the search for more money". I think it will have a good opening weekend, but will not have staying power. Time will tell.

>
> May 28 - The Day After Tomorrow
>
> Ok, Roland Emmerich needs to find a new schtick, because I'm not sure that any other director has made such wildly spectacular visuals come off as so absurd, tiresome, and just plain boring. We already had Deep Impact, Armageddon, Godzilla, and Independence Day, the latter two of which Emmerich also made. This is a huge been there, done that. In any case, are we really ready, post 9/11, for a witless popcorn flick whose appeal comes largely from the spectacular destruction of New York City? Independence Day is the closest Emmerich ever came to a good movie, and while I liked that, it didn't have much in the way of staying power. The rest of his filmography is largely idiotic fluff. Check your brain *and* your sense of taste at the door.

And who paid for this movie, anyway? Greenpeace? Ralph Nader for President? People for the Advancement of the Kyoto Accord? Someone Canadian?

Really, this is a piece of work. Global warming causes a terrible cataclysm? Terrible, even for propaganda. You should check out the website; it details how the movie's production company is buying and planting trees through a foundation to make up for the global warming effects of the making of the film. Kumbaya.

> June 4 - Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
>
> Hooray, Chris Columbus is out of the picture. The first two movies were good in spite of him; now let's see what can happen with some visionary talent at the helm.

The kids really need to be replaced. They are approaching the creation of a real dissonance between the books and the films because of the age of the actors.

>
> June 11 - Garfield: The Movie
>
> Bill Murray as the voice of the cat is the single attractive asset of this movie. It looks just plain awful. The CGI cat looks stupid. Odie doesn't look like Odie. Is this really Garfield, or some kind of alternate Garfield reality set in the world of the Stuart Little movies?

Shouldn't this have come out in the 1980's? When someone still read Garfield?

(Apologies to Garfield lovers, I just lost interest after I turned 10.)

> June 11 -- The Chronicles of Riddick
>
> The marketing behind this movie missed a great opportunity to sell this. Remember the ads for Eyes Wide Shut that began "Cruise. Kidman. Kubrick."? I think "Diesel. Dench." is twice as awesome, despite being short a name. The world has been waiting a long time for the inevitable pairing of Vin Diesel with Dame Judi Dench. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone was waiting for a sequel to Pitch Black.

I liked the previews for this movie. I would really like it to be as interesting the adverts promise.

> June 18 - The Terminal
>
> According to David Poland of The Hot Button, "The Terminal" is the best film since "Hulk" and "Undercover Brother," and better than any film prior to that.

Nuts and gum, together at last.

> June 25 - Two Brothers
>
> Director Jean-Jacques Annaud is responsible for some of the most boring, overpraised movies ever. If this movie, about a couple of tiger cubs, is as tedious as "The Bear," count me out.

Tigers are better actors when they are chewing on someone's foot or neck.

>
> June 30 - Spiderman 2
>
> David Poland seems to think this isn't going to crack $150 million at the box office. I would be surprised.

There seem to be few Spider-man fans here. I have two words to say: Doc Oc. 'nuff said.

>
> July 30 - Thunderbirds
>
> This movie confuses me. It's a movie aimed at kids, but it's based on material before their time and, in the case of American kids, stuff they probably wouldn't have seen anyway. Moreover, the whole point of the television show, what made it so wildly entertaining, was that it was all done with marionettes and unapologetically cheesy miniatures. Who needs a live action version? The only way a live action version would work is if all the actors imitate actual puppets, sidling and gliding around, arms hanging out to the sides. And all the sets and vehicles and so forth would have to be toybox-level miniatures. The director of this movie is Jonathan Frakes, who made one great Trek film and one bad one. No idea how he's going to do here.

They should have produced it using a mix of live actors and felt muppets. That would have been a real tribute. A felt vampire + Brent Spiner + Gonzo = what Thunderbirds should have been.

>
> July 30 - The Village
>
> M. Night Shyamalan. I'm there.

Agreed.

> August 13 - Alien vs. Predator
>
> The director of this thing is such an airheaded little fanboy. He's the type to start sentences with "Would it be cool if...?" and end them with a decision on what's going in the movie. The plot premise is the most absurd thing ever (something about, what if the Predators built the Pyramids, and the Aliens were melted out of the polar ice caps?). The whole idea of pitting Aliens against Predators cannot be taken seriously, but it would have been nice if someone who knew how to have fun with it were running the show.

Remember the nuts and gum?

frum