I had remained cautiously optimistic about Knight and Day throughout its marketing run. Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz were definitely an interesting pairing; they worked well together in 2001’s Vanilla Sky, but the same combination was not guaranteed to work with today’s audience. With the exception of the Shrek series, Cameron Diaz hasn’t been a big mainstream draw in recent years, and we all know about Tom Cruise’s downward spiral since he started jumping on Oprah’s couch in 2005. Still, Tom Cruise has played spy before, so maybe he could pull it off again.
Unfortunately, neither Cruise nor Diaz had much to work with in this script. The plot is sheer nonsense with mediocre special effects and a jumpy narrative. The two leads are the biggest draw for this film. Say what you want about his personal life, few can deny that Tom Cruise is a talented actor, and he was truly enjoyable to watch on screen. As for Cameron Diaz, she was the perfect blend of charming and silly, all while looking far more attractive than she has in some time. As a team, they are the only sign of life in this train-wreck of a script. If you are a big fan of the two leads, Knight and Day offers an acceptable amount of enjoyment, but that one redeeming fact is not enough to garner a high recommendation.
For further analysis, please read full review
Overall Recommendation: Low
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Knight and Day: Full Review
Knight and Day: (June 23, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $20,139,985
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $75,289,389
Gross Revenue: $214,620,284
Budget: $117,000,000
Director: James Mangold
Full Review
During my weekend preview post, I mentioned that I had initially not planned to see Knight and Day, but the trailer attached to the film was enough to pique my interest. With classics such as Jerry Macguire, Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Rain Man, and the Mission: Impossible series, Tom Cruise was once one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood, but given some of the marketing tactics used, it was clear that 20th Century Fox knew that such an assurance was now long gone. Sneak previews and viral videos simply could not generate an acceptable amount of interest for Knight and Day…Fox even released an extended scene on iTunes to improve interest, but I still think that the large level of controversy surrounding Cruise’s well-publicized personal life remained too vibrant in the mind of the average moviegoer. One of the more clever tactics I noticed involved June’s MTV Movie Awards, where Cruise and Diaz not only appeared together, but Cruise’s infamous character Les Grossman from 2008’s Tropic Thunder (the foul-mouthed executive who was easily the funniest character in that movie) made numerous appearances. This was a rather blatant reminder that Tom Cruise is a talented and entertaining actor, and maybe his newest film would be worth making a trip to the theater.
Tragically, Knight and Day was the wrong project to try and return Tom Cruise to superstar status. Cruise plays Roy Miller, a rogue spy who bumps in to civilian June Havens (Cameron Diaz) on a plane flight; when the people chasing Miller assume that June is working with him, he is forced to protect her as they both must now evade relentless pursuers. It turns out that Miller had been framed by his former partner…Miller was shadowing a scientist who developed a perpetual energy battery, and Miller’s partner decided to steal this technology and sell it to the highest bidder; when Miller tried to intervene, he was branded as the traitor.
Plot sound a little confusing and not that logical? If so, your instincts are dead-on. Knight and Day’s narrative is so jumpy that the audience has a hard time keeping track of what exactly is going on for a majority of the film. Though some amount of confusion can be expected for a spy movie, there still has to be some flow and logic present, and both are notably absent in this film. Also, with a summer action film, impressive action sequences should be a given, but I was shocked at the mediocre quality of most of the chase and fight sequences, some of which relied on painfully obvious computer-generated imagery. Plain and simple, the combination of Knight and Day’s plot and action sequences resulted in a thoroughly disappointing story launched during a movie season where success demands near-flawless execution.
Surprisingly, the performances of Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz are the only saving graces for Knight and Day. Regardless of what you think of Tom Cruise’s personal life, few can deny that he is a talented and engaging actor, and throughout this film, he blends humor and action well. He almost seems to be channeling and switching between some of his more famous on-screen personas throughout, and though it could have been annoying to see sports agent Jerry Macguire morph into super-agent Ethan Hunt from scene-to-scene, it was actually pretty entertaining. As the female lead, Cameron Diaz was also surprisingly charming as the somewhat inept damsel-in-distress, not to mention that she and Cruise actually showed some considerable chemistry. On a personal note, I don’t know if it’s because Cameron Diaz has starting wearing her hair long again or put on a little weight so that she’s no longer rail-thin, but I haven’t seen her look this attractive since she first appeared on Hollywood’s radar in 1994’s The Mask with Jim Carrey (yep, hard to believe that was her). It has to be a testament to the talent of these two actors that they were able to deliver enjoyable performances in the midst of the rest of the film.
Though a number of critics acknowledge that Cruise and Diaz’s performances represent some of the strongest aspects of Knight and Day, it looks like the general public still isn’t quite ready to forget Cruise’s personal life. In terms of the weekend box-office, Knight and Day only made $20 million its opening weekend, coming in behind Toy Story 3 and Grown Ups. Though I knew that it wouldn’t overtake Disney-Pixar’s juggernaut, I still expected Knight and Day to perform a little better. Not only was this Tom Cruise’s worst movie opening in 20 years, but with a production budget of $125 million and Twilight: Eclipse coming out this week, you can virtually guarantee that 20th Century Fox is going to be losing some big money. The shame of it is that it is not really Tom Cruise’s fault, he put in a good performance regardless of a bad script, and yet he will no doubt take a majority of the blame. He has delivered some of the best movies in Hollywood’s history, but his personal life interfered with his career, now making him a victim of circumstance, and that’s unfortunate. Hopefully one of his established franchises can help when Mission: Impossible 4 hits in 2011.
All in all, the cast does what they can with the script of Knight and Day, but good performances simply aren’t enough.
Overall recommendation: Low
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $20,139,985
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $75,289,389
Gross Revenue: $214,620,284
Budget: $117,000,000
Director: James Mangold
Full Review
During my weekend preview post, I mentioned that I had initially not planned to see Knight and Day, but the trailer attached to the film was enough to pique my interest. With classics such as Jerry Macguire, Top Gun, A Few Good Men, Rain Man, and the Mission: Impossible series, Tom Cruise was once one of the most bankable actors in Hollywood, but given some of the marketing tactics used, it was clear that 20th Century Fox knew that such an assurance was now long gone. Sneak previews and viral videos simply could not generate an acceptable amount of interest for Knight and Day…Fox even released an extended scene on iTunes to improve interest, but I still think that the large level of controversy surrounding Cruise’s well-publicized personal life remained too vibrant in the mind of the average moviegoer. One of the more clever tactics I noticed involved June’s MTV Movie Awards, where Cruise and Diaz not only appeared together, but Cruise’s infamous character Les Grossman from 2008’s Tropic Thunder (the foul-mouthed executive who was easily the funniest character in that movie) made numerous appearances. This was a rather blatant reminder that Tom Cruise is a talented and entertaining actor, and maybe his newest film would be worth making a trip to the theater.
Tragically, Knight and Day was the wrong project to try and return Tom Cruise to superstar status. Cruise plays Roy Miller, a rogue spy who bumps in to civilian June Havens (Cameron Diaz) on a plane flight; when the people chasing Miller assume that June is working with him, he is forced to protect her as they both must now evade relentless pursuers. It turns out that Miller had been framed by his former partner…Miller was shadowing a scientist who developed a perpetual energy battery, and Miller’s partner decided to steal this technology and sell it to the highest bidder; when Miller tried to intervene, he was branded as the traitor.
Plot sound a little confusing and not that logical? If so, your instincts are dead-on. Knight and Day’s narrative is so jumpy that the audience has a hard time keeping track of what exactly is going on for a majority of the film. Though some amount of confusion can be expected for a spy movie, there still has to be some flow and logic present, and both are notably absent in this film. Also, with a summer action film, impressive action sequences should be a given, but I was shocked at the mediocre quality of most of the chase and fight sequences, some of which relied on painfully obvious computer-generated imagery. Plain and simple, the combination of Knight and Day’s plot and action sequences resulted in a thoroughly disappointing story launched during a movie season where success demands near-flawless execution.
Surprisingly, the performances of Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz are the only saving graces for Knight and Day. Regardless of what you think of Tom Cruise’s personal life, few can deny that he is a talented and engaging actor, and throughout this film, he blends humor and action well. He almost seems to be channeling and switching between some of his more famous on-screen personas throughout, and though it could have been annoying to see sports agent Jerry Macguire morph into super-agent Ethan Hunt from scene-to-scene, it was actually pretty entertaining. As the female lead, Cameron Diaz was also surprisingly charming as the somewhat inept damsel-in-distress, not to mention that she and Cruise actually showed some considerable chemistry. On a personal note, I don’t know if it’s because Cameron Diaz has starting wearing her hair long again or put on a little weight so that she’s no longer rail-thin, but I haven’t seen her look this attractive since she first appeared on Hollywood’s radar in 1994’s The Mask with Jim Carrey (yep, hard to believe that was her). It has to be a testament to the talent of these two actors that they were able to deliver enjoyable performances in the midst of the rest of the film.
Though a number of critics acknowledge that Cruise and Diaz’s performances represent some of the strongest aspects of Knight and Day, it looks like the general public still isn’t quite ready to forget Cruise’s personal life. In terms of the weekend box-office, Knight and Day only made $20 million its opening weekend, coming in behind Toy Story 3 and Grown Ups. Though I knew that it wouldn’t overtake Disney-Pixar’s juggernaut, I still expected Knight and Day to perform a little better. Not only was this Tom Cruise’s worst movie opening in 20 years, but with a production budget of $125 million and Twilight: Eclipse coming out this week, you can virtually guarantee that 20th Century Fox is going to be losing some big money. The shame of it is that it is not really Tom Cruise’s fault, he put in a good performance regardless of a bad script, and yet he will no doubt take a majority of the blame. He has delivered some of the best movies in Hollywood’s history, but his personal life interfered with his career, now making him a victim of circumstance, and that’s unfortunate. Hopefully one of his established franchises can help when Mission: Impossible 4 hits in 2011.
All in all, the cast does what they can with the script of Knight and Day, but good performances simply aren’t enough.
Overall recommendation: Low
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Coming this Week (June 23 and 25)
Knight and Day and Grown Ups open this week. While I wasn’t initially excited for Knight and Day, I have to admit that the trailers are pretty tempting, especially with the popular Muse song “Uprising” playing in the background. Given Tom Cruise’s well-publicized personal life, it’s easy to forget that he is actually a pretty entertaining actor and that he plays the spy role well. (Mission: Impossible ring a bell?). A Wednesday release can be tricky, but let’s see what happens. Review coming soon.
I’m still not sure how I feel about Grown Ups, the cast seems talented enough (with Rob Schneider being the obvious exception), but Adam Sandler’s recent movies have been pretty weak (the name Zohan jumps to mind). Sony Pictures is being pretty aggressive with its marketing campaign, but they may be risking consumer overload. The cast was annoying enough at the NBA Finals, but who hasn’t seen the preview of them peeing in the public pool a dozen times? I’ll try to be as fair as possible. Check back soon.
I’m still not sure how I feel about Grown Ups, the cast seems talented enough (with Rob Schneider being the obvious exception), but Adam Sandler’s recent movies have been pretty weak (the name Zohan jumps to mind). Sony Pictures is being pretty aggressive with its marketing campaign, but they may be risking consumer overload. The cast was annoying enough at the NBA Finals, but who hasn’t seen the preview of them peeing in the public pool a dozen times? I’ll try to be as fair as possible. Check back soon.
Toy Story 3
Toy Story 3 (June 18, 2010): G
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1: $110,307,189
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $400,824,826
Gross Revenue: $940,515,022
Budget: Approx $200 million
Director: Lee Unkrich
During the summer movie season, animated movies are always a strong draw, but any Disney-Pixar collaboration has, time-and-again, proven to be nothing short of box-office gold. Shrek Forever After definitely generated a lot of media buzz, but given Disney-Pixar’s impressive track record of excellent summer films, Toy Story 3 was easily one of the most anticipated films of the summer. Beyond a laundry list of promotional tie-ins, Walt Disney Pictures made the clever move of re-releasing both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 as a Digital 3-D double feature in November. Considering that the first Toy Story was released 15 years ago, this re-release not only reminded college students of one of their favorite childhood movies, but it also introduced an entirely new generation of children to beloved characters…so, ticket demand was sure to sky-rocket.
After watching Toy Story 3, I honestly do not think that Disney-Pixar could make a bad film if it tried to, it’s near-impossible not to enjoy this latest animated adventure. Nearly all the beloved toys and voice-actors from the series return in this sequel, and considering the time gap between movies (Toy Story 2 was released in 1999), that’s quite an impressive feat. This time around, Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz (Tim Allen) must lead the rest of the toys (Jessie, Bullseye, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, and Slinky Dog) through a difficult transition as their owner, Andy (now 17-years old), is preparing to go to college. Though Andy is not entirely willing to part with his beloved toys, through a series of mishaps, the toys are donated to a daycare center. At first the toys delight in the prospect of playing with a never-ending line of young children (thus never facing the risk of being outgrown or neglected), but as time passes the other toys in the daycare are revealed to possess sinister motives, and so Woody and Buzz must try their best to save their friends and return to Andy.
Needless to say, for fans of the original series, Toy Story 3 is nothing short of an absolute delight, blending viewer nostalgia with a heart-warming story and considerable humor. I have maintained for years that animated movies just keep getting funnier and funnier, and that is because they utilize clever jokes that young children are unable to understand, but the jokes are highly amusing to those same children’s parents. Too often parents are forced to sit with their children through idiotic films, but with clever enough writers, some films can please both children and parents, and Toy Story 3 is no different. For instance, small children will enjoy seeing the Barbie and Ken dolls on screen, but the dialogue between the two contains some pretty mature jokes that reference the historical pairing of the two and the stereotypes associated with each character, which is sure to please older audience members. Impressive computer graphics are a given, but the all-star voice cast steals the show by bringing heart and depth to these established characters. You don’t even have to be a fan of the series to enjoy the film, though keen movie-goers will catch several references to the original Toy Story, the film’s engaging story deals with mature themes of acceptance and transition, and then sails past the finish line with a delightful ending that is sure to tug at a few heart strings.
With $110 million its opening weekend, Toy Story 3 is well on its way to being one of the top-grossing films of the summer, and it’s highly unlikely that Knight and Day or Grown Ups will be able to dethrone the animated feature from the top of the box-office this weekend. On an interesting note, Box Office Mojo reported that 40 percent of the non-family audience was aged 17-24, confirming my earlier speculation that Toy Story 3 will draw significant success from those who grew up on the original. With this strong opening weekend, Toy Story 3 has helped place the Toy Story series as one of the top 10 grossing movie trilogies of all time, and with the exception of one reviewer, Toy Story 3 holds a 100% positive review rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As a critical and financial success, Toy Story 3 should not be missed; Shrek Forever After was great, but I can't emphasize enough that Toy Story 3 is the superior animated movie of the summer.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Distributor: Walt Disney Pictures.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1: $110,307,189
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $400,824,826
Gross Revenue: $940,515,022
Budget: Approx $200 million
Director: Lee Unkrich
During the summer movie season, animated movies are always a strong draw, but any Disney-Pixar collaboration has, time-and-again, proven to be nothing short of box-office gold. Shrek Forever After definitely generated a lot of media buzz, but given Disney-Pixar’s impressive track record of excellent summer films, Toy Story 3 was easily one of the most anticipated films of the summer. Beyond a laundry list of promotional tie-ins, Walt Disney Pictures made the clever move of re-releasing both Toy Story and Toy Story 2 as a Digital 3-D double feature in November. Considering that the first Toy Story was released 15 years ago, this re-release not only reminded college students of one of their favorite childhood movies, but it also introduced an entirely new generation of children to beloved characters…so, ticket demand was sure to sky-rocket.
After watching Toy Story 3, I honestly do not think that Disney-Pixar could make a bad film if it tried to, it’s near-impossible not to enjoy this latest animated adventure. Nearly all the beloved toys and voice-actors from the series return in this sequel, and considering the time gap between movies (Toy Story 2 was released in 1999), that’s quite an impressive feat. This time around, Woody (Tom Hanks) and Buzz (Tim Allen) must lead the rest of the toys (Jessie, Bullseye, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Hamm, Rex, and Slinky Dog) through a difficult transition as their owner, Andy (now 17-years old), is preparing to go to college. Though Andy is not entirely willing to part with his beloved toys, through a series of mishaps, the toys are donated to a daycare center. At first the toys delight in the prospect of playing with a never-ending line of young children (thus never facing the risk of being outgrown or neglected), but as time passes the other toys in the daycare are revealed to possess sinister motives, and so Woody and Buzz must try their best to save their friends and return to Andy.
Needless to say, for fans of the original series, Toy Story 3 is nothing short of an absolute delight, blending viewer nostalgia with a heart-warming story and considerable humor. I have maintained for years that animated movies just keep getting funnier and funnier, and that is because they utilize clever jokes that young children are unable to understand, but the jokes are highly amusing to those same children’s parents. Too often parents are forced to sit with their children through idiotic films, but with clever enough writers, some films can please both children and parents, and Toy Story 3 is no different. For instance, small children will enjoy seeing the Barbie and Ken dolls on screen, but the dialogue between the two contains some pretty mature jokes that reference the historical pairing of the two and the stereotypes associated with each character, which is sure to please older audience members. Impressive computer graphics are a given, but the all-star voice cast steals the show by bringing heart and depth to these established characters. You don’t even have to be a fan of the series to enjoy the film, though keen movie-goers will catch several references to the original Toy Story, the film’s engaging story deals with mature themes of acceptance and transition, and then sails past the finish line with a delightful ending that is sure to tug at a few heart strings.
With $110 million its opening weekend, Toy Story 3 is well on its way to being one of the top-grossing films of the summer, and it’s highly unlikely that Knight and Day or Grown Ups will be able to dethrone the animated feature from the top of the box-office this weekend. On an interesting note, Box Office Mojo reported that 40 percent of the non-family audience was aged 17-24, confirming my earlier speculation that Toy Story 3 will draw significant success from those who grew up on the original. With this strong opening weekend, Toy Story 3 has helped place the Toy Story series as one of the top 10 grossing movie trilogies of all time, and with the exception of one reviewer, Toy Story 3 holds a 100% positive review rating on Rotten Tomatoes. As a critical and financial success, Toy Story 3 should not be missed; Shrek Forever After was great, but I can't emphasize enough that Toy Story 3 is the superior animated movie of the summer.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Monday, June 21, 2010
Jonah Hex
Jonah Hex: (June 18, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #7 with $5,379,365
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $10,547,117
Gross Revenue: $10,547,117
Budget: $47 million
Director: Jimmy Hayward
For anyone who read my weekend preview, I was more than skeptical about Jonah Hex. Yes, the trailers released on primetime television and YouTube were prevalent, and yes, Josh Brolin and Megan Fox had made their obligatory appearances at San Diego’s annual Comic-Con to promote the film, but I still maintained that Jonah Hex himself was just too obscure of a comic book character to draw a strong audience. There was the possibility that Jonah Hex would have an acceptable story and be entertaining enough to generate some positive word-of-mouth, but as I walked out of the theater, it was clear that hell would have to freeze over before Jonah Hex would gain any such positive acclaim.
Here’s the story, Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) is a former Confederate soldier who defected to the Union before the end of the Civil War. His betrayal led to the death of his commanding officer’s son, and so, his commanding officer, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich) retaliates by murdering Hex’s wife and son and horribly disfiguring Hex himself. Fast forward a few years and Hex is now working as a bounty hunter while Turnbull has stolen a devastating weapon that he plans to use on the United States. Naturally, Hex is presented the opportunity to both have his revenge and save the day by stopping Turnbull. While there were definitely times that Jonah Hex seemed way too much like 1999’s Wild Wild West, the story could have been entertaining if it was executed properly; sadly, such was not the case.
The single biggest problem with Jonah Hex has to do with the film’s run-time. At 81 minutes long, Jonah Hex is way too short for any kind of character development beyond Hex himself. While it may seem that a bad movie being too short might be a good thing, the shame is that Jonah Hex could have been much better if only the script had allowed for more explanation. Josh Brolin actually does pretty well with his character, but it’s hard to judge either John Malkovich or Megan Fox as the villain or the female lead respectively, simply because they each are only on screen for a maximum of about 20-30 minutes, if that. John Malkovich is usually a dependable go-to villain, and though Megan Fox isn’t known for her acting skills, it’s damn-near impossible to rate either of their performances.
With so little time to put together a plausible comic book adaptation, there are way too many assumptions expected of the audience. We have no clue why Fox’s character loves Hex or exactly what Turnbull is trying to accomplish or even how his weapon works (he shoots a glowing orb at giant iron balls, which in turn generates something akin to a nuclear explosion…yeah, and apparently Eli Whitney created it after the cotton gin); we just have to accept the film’s reality as given. Again, with even a little more plot development, Jonah Hex could have been a much better film.
However, in spite of the short run-time, there are still some pretty big criticisms worth noting. The writers decided to give Hex supernatural powers (a trait completely absent from the comics), and while initially novel, they become distracting and way too confusing. Hex has the ability to bring the dead back to life momentarily, but the longer he keeps them alive, the more they start deteriorating. This kind of mystic, messing with the afterlife stuff is very reminiscent of 2008’s Ghost Rider, and it’s even dumber now than it was then. Another problem has to do with Hex’s weaponry…carrying a six-gun is standard enough for a western-era hero, but attaching rail-guns to a horse or wielding crossbows that ignite and shoot sticks of dynamite (I’ll admit, those were actually pretty cool), simply shows that the film can’t decide if it wants to be a western or a comic-book adaptation. Sure, the two genres could have mixed successfully, but in this case, they didn’t.
In terms of weekend box-office, Warner Bros. is experiencing nothing short of a nightmare. It was bad enough to go against Toy Story 3 for weekend movie-goers, but I don’t think anyone could have predicted that Jonah Hex would do this poorly. The film cleared just over $5 million its opening weekend, placing it 7th or 8th against other offerings in terms of revenue…for those of you not that familiar with box-office analysis, that’s shockingly bad, especially for a summer movie. Some reports indicate that Jonah Hex’s numbers make it the worst superhero movie opening since 1997’s Steel (Don’t remember it? Well, you shouldn’t, it starred Shaquille O’Neal…that’s right, in addition to Kazaam, Shaq actually played a superhero). I’ve said before that Marvel is far surpassing DC in the realm of comic book movies, but with Jonah Hex and the recently disappointing The Losers (a DC Comics adaptation released in April); Marvel has little to worry about. Jonah Hex is faithful enough to the core material to please its extremely limited fan base, but for the rest of us, it’s nothing more than a critical and financial failure.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Distributor: Warner Bros.
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #7 with $5,379,365
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $10,547,117
Gross Revenue: $10,547,117
Budget: $47 million
Director: Jimmy Hayward
For anyone who read my weekend preview, I was more than skeptical about Jonah Hex. Yes, the trailers released on primetime television and YouTube were prevalent, and yes, Josh Brolin and Megan Fox had made their obligatory appearances at San Diego’s annual Comic-Con to promote the film, but I still maintained that Jonah Hex himself was just too obscure of a comic book character to draw a strong audience. There was the possibility that Jonah Hex would have an acceptable story and be entertaining enough to generate some positive word-of-mouth, but as I walked out of the theater, it was clear that hell would have to freeze over before Jonah Hex would gain any such positive acclaim.
Here’s the story, Jonah Hex (Josh Brolin) is a former Confederate soldier who defected to the Union before the end of the Civil War. His betrayal led to the death of his commanding officer’s son, and so, his commanding officer, Quentin Turnbull (John Malkovich) retaliates by murdering Hex’s wife and son and horribly disfiguring Hex himself. Fast forward a few years and Hex is now working as a bounty hunter while Turnbull has stolen a devastating weapon that he plans to use on the United States. Naturally, Hex is presented the opportunity to both have his revenge and save the day by stopping Turnbull. While there were definitely times that Jonah Hex seemed way too much like 1999’s Wild Wild West, the story could have been entertaining if it was executed properly; sadly, such was not the case.
The single biggest problem with Jonah Hex has to do with the film’s run-time. At 81 minutes long, Jonah Hex is way too short for any kind of character development beyond Hex himself. While it may seem that a bad movie being too short might be a good thing, the shame is that Jonah Hex could have been much better if only the script had allowed for more explanation. Josh Brolin actually does pretty well with his character, but it’s hard to judge either John Malkovich or Megan Fox as the villain or the female lead respectively, simply because they each are only on screen for a maximum of about 20-30 minutes, if that. John Malkovich is usually a dependable go-to villain, and though Megan Fox isn’t known for her acting skills, it’s damn-near impossible to rate either of their performances.
With so little time to put together a plausible comic book adaptation, there are way too many assumptions expected of the audience. We have no clue why Fox’s character loves Hex or exactly what Turnbull is trying to accomplish or even how his weapon works (he shoots a glowing orb at giant iron balls, which in turn generates something akin to a nuclear explosion…yeah, and apparently Eli Whitney created it after the cotton gin); we just have to accept the film’s reality as given. Again, with even a little more plot development, Jonah Hex could have been a much better film.
However, in spite of the short run-time, there are still some pretty big criticisms worth noting. The writers decided to give Hex supernatural powers (a trait completely absent from the comics), and while initially novel, they become distracting and way too confusing. Hex has the ability to bring the dead back to life momentarily, but the longer he keeps them alive, the more they start deteriorating. This kind of mystic, messing with the afterlife stuff is very reminiscent of 2008’s Ghost Rider, and it’s even dumber now than it was then. Another problem has to do with Hex’s weaponry…carrying a six-gun is standard enough for a western-era hero, but attaching rail-guns to a horse or wielding crossbows that ignite and shoot sticks of dynamite (I’ll admit, those were actually pretty cool), simply shows that the film can’t decide if it wants to be a western or a comic-book adaptation. Sure, the two genres could have mixed successfully, but in this case, they didn’t.
In terms of weekend box-office, Warner Bros. is experiencing nothing short of a nightmare. It was bad enough to go against Toy Story 3 for weekend movie-goers, but I don’t think anyone could have predicted that Jonah Hex would do this poorly. The film cleared just over $5 million its opening weekend, placing it 7th or 8th against other offerings in terms of revenue…for those of you not that familiar with box-office analysis, that’s shockingly bad, especially for a summer movie. Some reports indicate that Jonah Hex’s numbers make it the worst superhero movie opening since 1997’s Steel (Don’t remember it? Well, you shouldn’t, it starred Shaquille O’Neal…that’s right, in addition to Kazaam, Shaq actually played a superhero). I’ve said before that Marvel is far surpassing DC in the realm of comic book movies, but with Jonah Hex and the recently disappointing The Losers (a DC Comics adaptation released in April); Marvel has little to worry about. Jonah Hex is faithful enough to the core material to please its extremely limited fan base, but for the rest of us, it’s nothing more than a critical and financial failure.
Overall Recommendation: Very Low
Monday, June 14, 2010
Coming Out June 18
Coming This Weekend
On June 18, Jonah Hex and Toy Story 3 will be released nationwide. I think the box-office will be decimated by Toy Story 3. Disney-Pixar has never failed to produce box-office gold, from The Incredibles to Ratatouille to Wall-E, and the original Toy Story was the first collaboration of the two powerhouses. With an insane number of marketing tie-ins, from Visa Debit Card to Kellogg’s, Lego and video-game collaborations, and a fully-integrated fun zone set to open at Hollywood’s historical El Capitan Theatre, Disney-Pixar is going for the box-office jugular. In terms of audience, it’s a given that every young child will see this film, but when you consider that many college students grew up on the original, it’s a safe bet that they will hit the theaters strong this weekend as well. Father’s Day may weaken the number of potential movie-goers on Sunday, but I think it’s a small threat at best. I’ll try and get a review out ASAP.
The other offering this weekend is Jonah Hex. Many are not aware that this is actually a movie based on a DC comic book character. While I love superhero films, I am very, very skeptical about this film, and this is coming from the guy that liked 2007’s Ghost Rider. Marvel has been the king of comic book movies for years, kicking the crap out of DC in terms of sheer volume of movies. Marvel boasts Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, and many more heroes, while DC only has only featured Batman and Superman. Jonah Hex is an extremely obscure DC character, a western-era hero, so its very odd that DC would put feature this character ahead of other potential fan-favorites (like The Flash or Wonder Woman), at least Ryan Reynolds will be seen as Green Lantern soon enough. Based on the trailers, they already got the character wrong (Jonah Hex has no powers in the comics, but now they’ve made him supernatural); John Malkovich is usually a dependable villain, but Megan Fox could either be a positive or negative. Sure, she’s hot, but acting talent is usually void in her case (Jennifer’s Body anyone? Yes I saw it and yes, I’ll never get that hour-and-a-half of my life back). Say what you want about Transformers 2, Michael Bay knew how to play to her strengths, and that involved 15-minutes of her running in slow motion. Let’s put a question mark on this one. Review coming soon.
On June 18, Jonah Hex and Toy Story 3 will be released nationwide. I think the box-office will be decimated by Toy Story 3. Disney-Pixar has never failed to produce box-office gold, from The Incredibles to Ratatouille to Wall-E, and the original Toy Story was the first collaboration of the two powerhouses. With an insane number of marketing tie-ins, from Visa Debit Card to Kellogg’s, Lego and video-game collaborations, and a fully-integrated fun zone set to open at Hollywood’s historical El Capitan Theatre, Disney-Pixar is going for the box-office jugular. In terms of audience, it’s a given that every young child will see this film, but when you consider that many college students grew up on the original, it’s a safe bet that they will hit the theaters strong this weekend as well. Father’s Day may weaken the number of potential movie-goers on Sunday, but I think it’s a small threat at best. I’ll try and get a review out ASAP.
The other offering this weekend is Jonah Hex. Many are not aware that this is actually a movie based on a DC comic book character. While I love superhero films, I am very, very skeptical about this film, and this is coming from the guy that liked 2007’s Ghost Rider. Marvel has been the king of comic book movies for years, kicking the crap out of DC in terms of sheer volume of movies. Marvel boasts Spider-Man, Daredevil, X-Men, Iron Man, Hulk, and many more heroes, while DC only has only featured Batman and Superman. Jonah Hex is an extremely obscure DC character, a western-era hero, so its very odd that DC would put feature this character ahead of other potential fan-favorites (like The Flash or Wonder Woman), at least Ryan Reynolds will be seen as Green Lantern soon enough. Based on the trailers, they already got the character wrong (Jonah Hex has no powers in the comics, but now they’ve made him supernatural); John Malkovich is usually a dependable villain, but Megan Fox could either be a positive or negative. Sure, she’s hot, but acting talent is usually void in her case (Jennifer’s Body anyone? Yes I saw it and yes, I’ll never get that hour-and-a-half of my life back). Say what you want about Transformers 2, Michael Bay knew how to play to her strengths, and that involved 15-minutes of her running in slow motion. Let’s put a question mark on this one. Review coming soon.
The A-Team
The A-Team: (June 11, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $25,669,455
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $76,793,401
Gross Revenue: $152,046,977
Budget: $110 million
Director: Joe Carnahan
With The Karate Kid and The A-Team being released on the same weekend, June 11 was clearly going to launch a competition for 80’s-viewer nostalgia. Whereas I was a huge fan of the original Karate Kid, I confess to not being very familiar with the original A-Team at all. Sure, I knew the premise of the show (thanks largely to a particular episode of Family Guy, “Brian Goes Back to College”), but as far as having followed past episodes or being able to compare the movie’s portrayal of these iconic characters to their original counterparts, I was at a lost. Running for five seasons, The A-Team no doubt had a loyal fan base, but in all likelihood, a large part of the highly sought-after teenage demographic would have no clue who team members Hannibal, Face, Murdock, or B.A. really were.
20th Century Fox seemed to recognize this potential problem and adequately address it with its casting and marketing choices. Choosing Liam Neeson as team leader John “Hannibal” Smith and Bradley Cooper as ladies-man Templeton “Faceman” Peck would obviously draw fans of both actors and their recent hits (2008’s Taken and 2009’s The Hangover respectively). The casting choices for the other team members were not as well known, but Sharlto Copley (who plays pilot H.M. Murdock) had his own break-out hit in 2009’s District 9, and MMA fans would be happy to see Quinton “Rampage” Jackson play the same team enforcer that Mr. T made famous in the 80’s. In terms of promotion, The A-Team was one of the featured trailers during the NBA Finals, and cast members made numerous guest appearances on everything from WWE’s Monday Night RAW to Lopez Tonight, so desired audience exposure levels prior to release were high.
Unfortunately, though my hopes for the film were high, I confess that I was really disappointed by the film’s painfully predictable characters and plot. The A-Team starts off well enough with an enjoyable introduction of the characters, who work well together on screen, but soon the plot devolves into the standard betrayed action heroes who must work to clear their name. Liam Neeson is enjoyable enough as Hannibal, but most of the time it just feels like we are watching his same character from Taken, and though Bradley Cooper brings humor to his character, it often feels like he is just trying too hard to play an action hero. Jessica Biel as the female lead could have been exciting, but her character is little more than the standard pissed-off ex-girlfriend who eventually comes to forgive and love the hero, but the transition is so quick it’s insulting. Quinton “Rampage” Jackson was by far the most disappointing; he started off well-enough trying to channel Mr. T’s “I Pity the Fool” characteristics, but then the script turns him into the stereotypical tough guy who recently found religion and now forsakes violence, but must channel it again to save his friends. Seriously, most of the plot devices seen in The A-Team have been painfully overused in the past, so there is nothing really unique about this story. The one saving grace is Sharlto Copley, who plays Murdock with enough insanity that he remains faithful to the original series while bringing significant humor to the film; he was easily the best part of the entire experience.
Another factor that hurts The A-Team has to do with the ludicrous action sequences. I understand that the members of The A-Team usually “specialize in the ridiculous” and that gratuitous violence and explosions could be expected, but the boundaries of basic logic can only be toyed with for so long. For example, I can buy the opening helicopter escape, but there’s no way in hell that I’ll buy that a falling tank, supported by one parachute mind you, could be steered in mid-air to land in a lake, and then be driven out of the lake with no one injured and no damage to said tank. To paint a clearer picture, I bought the action sequences more in last summer’s G.I. Joe (which had robotic accelerator suits, a ninja named “Snake Eyes,” and nuclear missiles filled with microscopic robots) than I did in The A-Team, that’s how insane they appear.
I said before that The A-Team and The Karate Kid would be competing for box-office nostalgia, but based on the numbers, The A-Team was the clear loser. The Karate Kid made $56 million (on a budget of $40 million), and The A-Team made $26 million (on a budget of $110 million); considering that movies face significant competition this season and the weak nature of this particular film, its unlikely that The A-Team will make its money back. Again, I was no fan of the original television-series, so even before I wrote this review I went on Hulu and watched a few episodes of The A-Team to try and make as fair an assessment as possible. For the most part, my criticism stands. Sure, the character representations are just faithful enough and there are enough references to the show to keep old fans happy, but to the average viewer, your time at the theater this summer is better spent with a different film.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Distributor: 20th Century Fox
Opening Weekend Box-Office: $25,669,455
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $76,793,401
Gross Revenue: $152,046,977
Budget: $110 million
Director: Joe Carnahan
With The Karate Kid and The A-Team being released on the same weekend, June 11 was clearly going to launch a competition for 80’s-viewer nostalgia. Whereas I was a huge fan of the original Karate Kid, I confess to not being very familiar with the original A-Team at all. Sure, I knew the premise of the show (thanks largely to a particular episode of Family Guy, “Brian Goes Back to College”), but as far as having followed past episodes or being able to compare the movie’s portrayal of these iconic characters to their original counterparts, I was at a lost. Running for five seasons, The A-Team no doubt had a loyal fan base, but in all likelihood, a large part of the highly sought-after teenage demographic would have no clue who team members Hannibal, Face, Murdock, or B.A. really were.
20th Century Fox seemed to recognize this potential problem and adequately address it with its casting and marketing choices. Choosing Liam Neeson as team leader John “Hannibal” Smith and Bradley Cooper as ladies-man Templeton “Faceman” Peck would obviously draw fans of both actors and their recent hits (2008’s Taken and 2009’s The Hangover respectively). The casting choices for the other team members were not as well known, but Sharlto Copley (who plays pilot H.M. Murdock) had his own break-out hit in 2009’s District 9, and MMA fans would be happy to see Quinton “Rampage” Jackson play the same team enforcer that Mr. T made famous in the 80’s. In terms of promotion, The A-Team was one of the featured trailers during the NBA Finals, and cast members made numerous guest appearances on everything from WWE’s Monday Night RAW to Lopez Tonight, so desired audience exposure levels prior to release were high.
Unfortunately, though my hopes for the film were high, I confess that I was really disappointed by the film’s painfully predictable characters and plot. The A-Team starts off well enough with an enjoyable introduction of the characters, who work well together on screen, but soon the plot devolves into the standard betrayed action heroes who must work to clear their name. Liam Neeson is enjoyable enough as Hannibal, but most of the time it just feels like we are watching his same character from Taken, and though Bradley Cooper brings humor to his character, it often feels like he is just trying too hard to play an action hero. Jessica Biel as the female lead could have been exciting, but her character is little more than the standard pissed-off ex-girlfriend who eventually comes to forgive and love the hero, but the transition is so quick it’s insulting. Quinton “Rampage” Jackson was by far the most disappointing; he started off well-enough trying to channel Mr. T’s “I Pity the Fool” characteristics, but then the script turns him into the stereotypical tough guy who recently found religion and now forsakes violence, but must channel it again to save his friends. Seriously, most of the plot devices seen in The A-Team have been painfully overused in the past, so there is nothing really unique about this story. The one saving grace is Sharlto Copley, who plays Murdock with enough insanity that he remains faithful to the original series while bringing significant humor to the film; he was easily the best part of the entire experience.
Another factor that hurts The A-Team has to do with the ludicrous action sequences. I understand that the members of The A-Team usually “specialize in the ridiculous” and that gratuitous violence and explosions could be expected, but the boundaries of basic logic can only be toyed with for so long. For example, I can buy the opening helicopter escape, but there’s no way in hell that I’ll buy that a falling tank, supported by one parachute mind you, could be steered in mid-air to land in a lake, and then be driven out of the lake with no one injured and no damage to said tank. To paint a clearer picture, I bought the action sequences more in last summer’s G.I. Joe (which had robotic accelerator suits, a ninja named “Snake Eyes,” and nuclear missiles filled with microscopic robots) than I did in The A-Team, that’s how insane they appear.
I said before that The A-Team and The Karate Kid would be competing for box-office nostalgia, but based on the numbers, The A-Team was the clear loser. The Karate Kid made $56 million (on a budget of $40 million), and The A-Team made $26 million (on a budget of $110 million); considering that movies face significant competition this season and the weak nature of this particular film, its unlikely that The A-Team will make its money back. Again, I was no fan of the original television-series, so even before I wrote this review I went on Hulu and watched a few episodes of The A-Team to try and make as fair an assessment as possible. For the most part, my criticism stands. Sure, the character representations are just faithful enough and there are enough references to the show to keep old fans happy, but to the average viewer, your time at the theater this summer is better spent with a different film.
Overall Recommendation: Low
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The Karate Kid (2010 remake)
The Karate Kid: (June 11, 2010): PG
Distributor: Colombia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $55,665,805
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $174,861,447
Gross Revenue: $268,583,702
Budget: $40 million
Director: Harald Zwart
As a huge fan of 1984’s The Karate Kid, I was understandably skeptical when I first heard that Will Smith would be producing a remake starring his own son and Jackie Chan. As a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Columbia Pictures launched a very aggressive marketing campaign that made use of various forms of social media, namely Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. We all remember Jaden Smith from 2006’s The Pursuit of Happiness and 2008’s The Day the Earth Stood Still, plus Jackie Chan is nothing short of royalty in the world of cinematic martial arts, but many questioned whether these two would be able to create the roles made famous by Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita so many years ago. As the first trailers were released and the public became privy to more information about the film, it became clear that this film would not be an exact remake of the original. While many of the plot elements would remain the same, Jaden Smith’s character was not meant to be Daniel LaRusso (Macchio’s character from the original), and Jackie Chan was not meant to be Mr. Miyagi. Given that the underdog spirit of the original was to remain intact, 2010’s The Karate Kid quickly became my most anticipated movie of this summer season.
For fans of the original, core plot elements are nearly identical in this remake. Jaden Smith plays Dre Parker, a 12-year-old who has just moved from Detroit to Beijing. In an attempt to fit in, Dre tries to befriend and develops a crush on a kind young classmate, Mei Ying, but in doing so he runs afoul of her classmate Cheng, a kung-fu prodigy who, along with some of his equally cruel friends, mercilessly torments and beats Dre. During one particularly bad beating, Dre is saved by the maintenance man from his building, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan). When all attempts to reach a peaceful resolve to the bullying fail, Mr. Han agrees to train Dre so that he may face his tormentors at an upcoming tournament. Some may call such a plot predictable, but I think that is an unfair characterization for a remake; if you’ve seen the original or are at least familiar with its story, then you have a pretty good idea of where this plot will be going. You cannot have a faithful remake and then completely change a core story that has become a classic over the years. While the film is enjoyable in its own rite, I believe that the ones who will truly get the most out of The Karate Kid are those who can spot the many clever and updated references to the 1984 original. For instance, the Mr. Miyagi’s infamous “Wax on, wax off” training is replaced by Mr. Han’s “Jacket on, jacket off” technique; Daniel’s winning crane-kick is translated into Dre’s cobra style of fighting, and the classic scene of Mr. Miyagi trying to catch a fly with chopsticks has been changed to Mr. Han first hitting the fly with a flyswatter, then peeling it off the wall with chopsticks. With the heartwarming story and these many references intended to bring about nostalgia from the 80’s (the trailer of the chopstick scene even had the original film’s theme song, “You’re the Best” playing in the background), The Karate Kid slyly pleases old fans while simultaneously creating new fans.
Will Smith intended The Karate Kid to be a star-making vehicle for his son, a fact that is oh so subtle as both Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith are some of the first two names you see on screen as producers during the opening credits. While many might be skeptical of a 12-year-old leading a big summer movie, Jaden Smith is nothing short of a crowd pleaser. Here’s an example from when I actually saw the film: when Dre is competing in the tournament during the climax, everybody was cheering as he scored a point…not just the paid extras in the film, but all the people actually sitting in the theater. I cannot remember the last time I’ve seen a theater audience support a character so strongly, and I go the movies pretty damn often. Sure, there were a few moments where Jaden’s inexperience on screen was obvious, but come on…what were YOU doing when you were 12? He has just enough comedic timing and attitude that the audience is pleasantly reminded of watching his father…simply put, he is obviously Will Smith’s son. You like Will Smith? Then you’ll enjoy watching Jaden. And in this day and age, who better to play a kung-fu/karate master than Jackie Chan? His character doesn’t quite match the same dry humor that made Mr. Miyagi so famous, but I cannot recall if I have ever seen Jackie Chan venture into a dramatic role. His Mr. Han is an emotionally deep mentor who is haunted by his past, and by the end of the film, both student and teacher end up learning something from each other.
As much as I enjoyed this contemporary update of the classic, there was one element of the film that was a little hard to digest, and that was the age of the characters. In the original Karate Kid, the protagonist, his tormentors, and his love interest are all high school seniors, so brutal fighting and a strong romantic spark between the male and female lead can be expected. However, when you place a 12-year-old in the same situation, it is simply not as believable. Dre’s tormentors in this film are relentlessly brutal…sure, I remember bullies when I was 12, and yeah, they really did suck, but it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that this group of adolescents would almost beat a fellow student to death, and then openly attack an adult twice their size as that adult tries to defend the person they’ve already beaten the crap out of. The martial arts in the film were clearly updated and are very impressive, and forget that critics are upset that the film is called The Karate Kid when the fighting style featured is actually a form of kung-fu (talk about splitting hairs), but some of this stuff feels straight out of The Matrix, and again, this level of ferocity and brutality is a little hard to process. Beyond, the violence, at the other end of the spectrum, the romance in the film feels a little forced and awkward. Chinese actress Wen Wen Han is absolutely adorable as Dre’s love interest Mei Ying, and when you look at their interactions from the dimension of two young kids developing a friendship, its heart-warming, but the kiss that the two share is a little awkward, and there is a scene where Mei Ying dances provocatively to Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face,” and that was just uncomfortable. I’m not trying to sound old-fashioned, but considering that Jaden Smith actually looks way younger than 12, its enough to cause a little concern. Still not convinced? Go see it and tell me that it wasn’t at least a little bit awkward.
In terms of cinematography, Beijing is shot as a beautiful setting, from the Forbidden City to The Great Wall, and the training montages are excellently crafted, but I do have one criticism. 90% of the film is shot with stationary camera, making the martial arts clear and easily perceptible. Yet, despite this established decision, in the last 20-minutes of the story, during the tournament scene of all places, the film inexplicably moves to hand-held camera, making the fighting scenes shaky and almost nauseating. Such a bad move was also present in 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy (remember how hard those fight scenes were to watch?), and though it’s not enough to ruin the film, it is worthy of some criticism.
If its not obvious by the rest of my review, I still loved The Karate Kid. If you are at all a fan of the original series or characters, don’t hesitate in going to see it. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fair and justified tribute. Even if you have never seen the original, have no clue who Mr. Miyagi is, or what “wax-on, wax-off” means, the fact remains that strong performances, excellent martial arts, and a truly crowd-pleasing underdog story makes The Karate Kid one of the most enjoyable movie experiences so far this summer.
Overall Recommendation: Vey High
Distributor: Colombia Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $55,665,805
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $174,861,447
Gross Revenue: $268,583,702
Budget: $40 million
Director: Harald Zwart
As a huge fan of 1984’s The Karate Kid, I was understandably skeptical when I first heard that Will Smith would be producing a remake starring his own son and Jackie Chan. As a division of Sony Pictures Entertainment, Columbia Pictures launched a very aggressive marketing campaign that made use of various forms of social media, namely Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. We all remember Jaden Smith from 2006’s The Pursuit of Happiness and 2008’s The Day the Earth Stood Still, plus Jackie Chan is nothing short of royalty in the world of cinematic martial arts, but many questioned whether these two would be able to create the roles made famous by Ralph Macchio and Pat Morita so many years ago. As the first trailers were released and the public became privy to more information about the film, it became clear that this film would not be an exact remake of the original. While many of the plot elements would remain the same, Jaden Smith’s character was not meant to be Daniel LaRusso (Macchio’s character from the original), and Jackie Chan was not meant to be Mr. Miyagi. Given that the underdog spirit of the original was to remain intact, 2010’s The Karate Kid quickly became my most anticipated movie of this summer season.
For fans of the original, core plot elements are nearly identical in this remake. Jaden Smith plays Dre Parker, a 12-year-old who has just moved from Detroit to Beijing. In an attempt to fit in, Dre tries to befriend and develops a crush on a kind young classmate, Mei Ying, but in doing so he runs afoul of her classmate Cheng, a kung-fu prodigy who, along with some of his equally cruel friends, mercilessly torments and beats Dre. During one particularly bad beating, Dre is saved by the maintenance man from his building, Mr. Han (Jackie Chan). When all attempts to reach a peaceful resolve to the bullying fail, Mr. Han agrees to train Dre so that he may face his tormentors at an upcoming tournament. Some may call such a plot predictable, but I think that is an unfair characterization for a remake; if you’ve seen the original or are at least familiar with its story, then you have a pretty good idea of where this plot will be going. You cannot have a faithful remake and then completely change a core story that has become a classic over the years. While the film is enjoyable in its own rite, I believe that the ones who will truly get the most out of The Karate Kid are those who can spot the many clever and updated references to the 1984 original. For instance, the Mr. Miyagi’s infamous “Wax on, wax off” training is replaced by Mr. Han’s “Jacket on, jacket off” technique; Daniel’s winning crane-kick is translated into Dre’s cobra style of fighting, and the classic scene of Mr. Miyagi trying to catch a fly with chopsticks has been changed to Mr. Han first hitting the fly with a flyswatter, then peeling it off the wall with chopsticks. With the heartwarming story and these many references intended to bring about nostalgia from the 80’s (the trailer of the chopstick scene even had the original film’s theme song, “You’re the Best” playing in the background), The Karate Kid slyly pleases old fans while simultaneously creating new fans.
Will Smith intended The Karate Kid to be a star-making vehicle for his son, a fact that is oh so subtle as both Will Smith and Jada Pinkett Smith are some of the first two names you see on screen as producers during the opening credits. While many might be skeptical of a 12-year-old leading a big summer movie, Jaden Smith is nothing short of a crowd pleaser. Here’s an example from when I actually saw the film: when Dre is competing in the tournament during the climax, everybody was cheering as he scored a point…not just the paid extras in the film, but all the people actually sitting in the theater. I cannot remember the last time I’ve seen a theater audience support a character so strongly, and I go the movies pretty damn often. Sure, there were a few moments where Jaden’s inexperience on screen was obvious, but come on…what were YOU doing when you were 12? He has just enough comedic timing and attitude that the audience is pleasantly reminded of watching his father…simply put, he is obviously Will Smith’s son. You like Will Smith? Then you’ll enjoy watching Jaden. And in this day and age, who better to play a kung-fu/karate master than Jackie Chan? His character doesn’t quite match the same dry humor that made Mr. Miyagi so famous, but I cannot recall if I have ever seen Jackie Chan venture into a dramatic role. His Mr. Han is an emotionally deep mentor who is haunted by his past, and by the end of the film, both student and teacher end up learning something from each other.
As much as I enjoyed this contemporary update of the classic, there was one element of the film that was a little hard to digest, and that was the age of the characters. In the original Karate Kid, the protagonist, his tormentors, and his love interest are all high school seniors, so brutal fighting and a strong romantic spark between the male and female lead can be expected. However, when you place a 12-year-old in the same situation, it is simply not as believable. Dre’s tormentors in this film are relentlessly brutal…sure, I remember bullies when I was 12, and yeah, they really did suck, but it’s a bit of a stretch to believe that this group of adolescents would almost beat a fellow student to death, and then openly attack an adult twice their size as that adult tries to defend the person they’ve already beaten the crap out of. The martial arts in the film were clearly updated and are very impressive, and forget that critics are upset that the film is called The Karate Kid when the fighting style featured is actually a form of kung-fu (talk about splitting hairs), but some of this stuff feels straight out of The Matrix, and again, this level of ferocity and brutality is a little hard to process. Beyond, the violence, at the other end of the spectrum, the romance in the film feels a little forced and awkward. Chinese actress Wen Wen Han is absolutely adorable as Dre’s love interest Mei Ying, and when you look at their interactions from the dimension of two young kids developing a friendship, its heart-warming, but the kiss that the two share is a little awkward, and there is a scene where Mei Ying dances provocatively to Lady Gaga’s “Poker Face,” and that was just uncomfortable. I’m not trying to sound old-fashioned, but considering that Jaden Smith actually looks way younger than 12, its enough to cause a little concern. Still not convinced? Go see it and tell me that it wasn’t at least a little bit awkward.
In terms of cinematography, Beijing is shot as a beautiful setting, from the Forbidden City to The Great Wall, and the training montages are excellently crafted, but I do have one criticism. 90% of the film is shot with stationary camera, making the martial arts clear and easily perceptible. Yet, despite this established decision, in the last 20-minutes of the story, during the tournament scene of all places, the film inexplicably moves to hand-held camera, making the fighting scenes shaky and almost nauseating. Such a bad move was also present in 2004’s The Bourne Supremacy (remember how hard those fight scenes were to watch?), and though it’s not enough to ruin the film, it is worthy of some criticism.
If its not obvious by the rest of my review, I still loved The Karate Kid. If you are at all a fan of the original series or characters, don’t hesitate in going to see it. It’s not perfect, but it’s a fair and justified tribute. Even if you have never seen the original, have no clue who Mr. Miyagi is, or what “wax-on, wax-off” means, the fact remains that strong performances, excellent martial arts, and a truly crowd-pleasing underdog story makes The Karate Kid one of the most enjoyable movie experiences so far this summer.
Overall Recommendation: Vey High
Friday, June 11, 2010
Get Him to the Greek
Get Him to the Greek (June 4, 2010): R
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 (Behind Shrek Forever After): $17,570,955
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $60,974,475
Gross Revenue: $82,133,987
Budget: $40 million
Director: Nicholas Stoller
As I was mapping out my summer movie list, Get Him to the Greek was not a priority. I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall (of which Greek is actually a spin-off), but I didn’t consider Russell Brand the strongest point of that film. The other part of my decision involved the fact that I had grown a little tired of Jonah Hill…yes, we know you’re sassy and cynical, but that gets old eventually. I had seen the previews and watched Brand and Hill promote the film on Comedy Central; I was even amused by Brand performing with his band from the film (Infant Sorrow) as a form of promotion, but I wasn’t sold. My dramatic decision reversal came about when I decided to watch Russell Brand do stand-up on Comedy Central…I had not laughed that hard in a long time. With a new appreciation of Brand’s comedic talent, I decided to give his newest film a chance. In retrospect, I’m glad to say that I made the right decision.
The trailers for the film were very straightforward about the plot. Hill plays Aaron Green, a young record company intern who must escort wild musician Aldous Snow (Brand) to Los Angeles’ Greek Theater for a reunion concert…needless to say, there’s plenty of room for comedic misadventure. Get Him to the Greek more than delivers on humor, Brand and Hill are an excellent comedic team, and many of Hill’s qualities that have made him tiresome in the past have been toned-down. However, the real surprise is Sean “Diddy” Combs, who plays Sergio Roma, record company executive and Green’s boss. Diddy steals almost every scene he is in, and is nothing short of hysterical…his presence only makes the comedic chemistry between Brand and Hill that much stronger. Another strong source of comedy comes from the large number of music and movie celebrity cameos, such as Christina Aguilera and P!nk. My two personal favorite cameos were Tom Felton (who plays Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films…a fact that Hill uses as an obvious source of humor) and Kristen Bell, who cameos as Sarah Marshall, her title character from Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Despite the strong comedic value present, the film is not perfect. My main criticism is that Get Him to the Greek seems to be trying a little too hard to bring heart to its characters. We all remember how 2007’s Knocked-Up dramatically shifted from raunchy-comedy to chick-flick, but the key difference here is that where Knocked-Up made the shift to dramatic and stayed there, Greek’s emotional transitions are too erratic. Aldous Snow is the stereotypical wild and out-of-control rock star, but there are numerous attempts to portray him as a more sympathetic character, one searching for family or battling loneliness, but as soon as the audience starts to sympathize with him, they are hit with a raunchy joke or situation, and forget about Aldous’ emotional problems. The erratic tone is a little unnecessary, because Aldous Snow is a likable enough character without trying to give him more emotional depth. Another small criticism is that some of the funny clips seen in the trailers are completely absent from the film…this is nothing to crucify the film over, but trailers are the main motivators to see a film, and if those scenes you liked are absent in the final product, I could see some moviegoers being disappointed.
Greek is being promoted as the funniest film since The Hangover, and for the large part, that is true. In a summer full of action and family films, Get Him to the Greek stands alone as an adult comedy, as it more than earns its R-rating with drug and sex jokes…Adam Sandler’s Grown-Ups seems tailored to families and can only be so funny with a PG-13 rating. Simply put, despite lukewarm box-office performance, Get Him to the Greek is the strongest comedy we will see all summer, don’t miss it.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Coming Soon: The Karate Kid and The A-Team
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 (Behind Shrek Forever After): $17,570,955
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $60,974,475
Gross Revenue: $82,133,987
Budget: $40 million
Director: Nicholas Stoller
As I was mapping out my summer movie list, Get Him to the Greek was not a priority. I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall (of which Greek is actually a spin-off), but I didn’t consider Russell Brand the strongest point of that film. The other part of my decision involved the fact that I had grown a little tired of Jonah Hill…yes, we know you’re sassy and cynical, but that gets old eventually. I had seen the previews and watched Brand and Hill promote the film on Comedy Central; I was even amused by Brand performing with his band from the film (Infant Sorrow) as a form of promotion, but I wasn’t sold. My dramatic decision reversal came about when I decided to watch Russell Brand do stand-up on Comedy Central…I had not laughed that hard in a long time. With a new appreciation of Brand’s comedic talent, I decided to give his newest film a chance. In retrospect, I’m glad to say that I made the right decision.
The trailers for the film were very straightforward about the plot. Hill plays Aaron Green, a young record company intern who must escort wild musician Aldous Snow (Brand) to Los Angeles’ Greek Theater for a reunion concert…needless to say, there’s plenty of room for comedic misadventure. Get Him to the Greek more than delivers on humor, Brand and Hill are an excellent comedic team, and many of Hill’s qualities that have made him tiresome in the past have been toned-down. However, the real surprise is Sean “Diddy” Combs, who plays Sergio Roma, record company executive and Green’s boss. Diddy steals almost every scene he is in, and is nothing short of hysterical…his presence only makes the comedic chemistry between Brand and Hill that much stronger. Another strong source of comedy comes from the large number of music and movie celebrity cameos, such as Christina Aguilera and P!nk. My two personal favorite cameos were Tom Felton (who plays Draco Malfoy in the Harry Potter films…a fact that Hill uses as an obvious source of humor) and Kristen Bell, who cameos as Sarah Marshall, her title character from Forgetting Sarah Marshall.
Despite the strong comedic value present, the film is not perfect. My main criticism is that Get Him to the Greek seems to be trying a little too hard to bring heart to its characters. We all remember how 2007’s Knocked-Up dramatically shifted from raunchy-comedy to chick-flick, but the key difference here is that where Knocked-Up made the shift to dramatic and stayed there, Greek’s emotional transitions are too erratic. Aldous Snow is the stereotypical wild and out-of-control rock star, but there are numerous attempts to portray him as a more sympathetic character, one searching for family or battling loneliness, but as soon as the audience starts to sympathize with him, they are hit with a raunchy joke or situation, and forget about Aldous’ emotional problems. The erratic tone is a little unnecessary, because Aldous Snow is a likable enough character without trying to give him more emotional depth. Another small criticism is that some of the funny clips seen in the trailers are completely absent from the film…this is nothing to crucify the film over, but trailers are the main motivators to see a film, and if those scenes you liked are absent in the final product, I could see some moviegoers being disappointed.
Greek is being promoted as the funniest film since The Hangover, and for the large part, that is true. In a summer full of action and family films, Get Him to the Greek stands alone as an adult comedy, as it more than earns its R-rating with drug and sex jokes…Adam Sandler’s Grown-Ups seems tailored to families and can only be so funny with a PG-13 rating. Simply put, despite lukewarm box-office performance, Get Him to the Greek is the strongest comedy we will see all summer, don’t miss it.
Overall Recommendation: Very High
Coming Soon: The Karate Kid and The A-Team
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (May 28, 2010):PG-13
Distributor: Walt Disney Studios
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $30.1 million
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $90,100,578
Gross Revenue: $328,516,152
Budget: $200 million
Director: Mike Newell; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
In addition to movies, I’m a pretty big video game fan, and though I never played the Prince of Persia series, I fully respect its influence and success within the gaming world. Many video games have great stories, but for the most part, translating those stories or even variants of those stories to the silver screen have often resulted in failure. Sure, there have been some decent and successful video game adaptations, such as Resident Evil and Tomb Raider, but for every acceptable entry, there are a laundry list of failures…to name a few: Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter, Doom, Silent Hill, BloodRayne, and House of the Dead (the last two were directed by German filmmaker Uwe Boll, who keeps making absolutely awful movies…seriously, how does this guy keep getting funding?). On the other end of the spectrum, trying to make video games of popular films to release alongside the theatrical presentation is also a common marketing practice, and more often the not, the games are rushed through development with little concern for quality. Movies and video games, two popular entertainment mediums, but historically, they have not mixed well. So, needless to say, a big-budget summer movie based on a relatively unknown video game series is a bit of a gamble.
From a marketing perspective, it is obvious that a video game movie is aimed at the male teen and young adult demographic, but the main strategy also involved playing off the union of Jerry Bruckheimer and Walt Disney Studios…. Bruckheimer is responsible for a staggering amount of popular movies and television (CSI, The Amazing Race, Con Air, Black Hawk Down, Armageddon…just to name a few), but Bruckheimer and Disney together translate to one series, Pirates of the Caribbean. In 2003, the idea of a movie based on a theme park ride seemed ridiculous (and 2003’s Haunted Mansion proved that this notion was not entirely unfounded…oh Eddie Murphy, you ruined another movie), but with Johnny Depp, an impressive story, and stunning special effects, a legendary series was born. If Disney and Bruckheimer can make money based off of pirate animatronics, it’s not that far of a stretch to think that a video game movie could be done well. From a casting standpoint, I have no problem with Jake Gyllenhall as an actor, though I confess being doubtful that he could carry an action movie as the title character, Gemma Arterton is easy on the eyes, and well, Sir Ben Kingsley is an amazing actor…so either the movie actually is good or Ben was in desperate need of a paycheck. My curiosity was piqued, so I knew I had to see it.
As far as the plot goes, I hate to say that Prince of Persia is pretty generic, Jake Gyllenhall plays Dastan, a street peasant turned adopted prince of the Persian Empire…if Dastan’s introductory scene doesn’t remind you of a near identical scene from Disney’s Aladdin, then you’ve sadly forgotten your childhood. Long story short, Dastan is framed for the murder of the king by his evil uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), so he must dodge assassins and authorities as he tries to clear his name, all with the help of a beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton), and a wise cracking sidekick (Alfred Molina, in a funnier role than I’ve seen him in for a while). While this all sounds painfully generic, the unique part of the story comes from the element that made the video game series so popular, time control. Dastan has a dagger that grants him the ability to make small jumps back in time, and the special effects during these time-travel sequences are pretty impressive. At just under 2 hours, Prince of Persia takes a little too long to tell this story, but as far as popcorn flicks go, with special effects and action sequences go, it keeps you entertained.
When someone thinks of Jake Gyllenhall, action star is not the first descriptive that usually comes to mind, but surprisingly enough, Jake holds his own and convincingly plays the hero to enough of a point that you actually forget that this is the same guy who was in Bubble Boy. It’s easy to see why Sony Pictures was considering Jake as a replacement for Tobey McGuire when it was unclear if Tobey would return as Peter Parker in the second Spider-Man movie…sure they look alike, but as a bonus, now I know that Jake could have actually carried the film had the switch been made. In terms of the rest of the cast, Ben Kingsley is a convincing villain and Alfred Molina is entertaining, but I have mixed feelings about Gemma Arterton. First off, it was driving me nuts throughout the film as I tried to figure out where I had seen here before. To my great surprise, it turns out that she was Agent Strawberry Fields in 2008’s Quantum of Solace…you remember her, the obligatory female that Bond beds before she is killed and drenched in oil…yes, that was her. Wow, didn’t recognize her…talk about an upgrade. As I said earlier, she provides significant eye candy, but it doesn’t go much beyond that…there was a small amount of chemistry between her and Gyllenhall, but it seemed that by the time the film’s climax was reached, her only role was to scream the hero’s name over and over again as he navigated dangerous obstacles.
In terms of box-office receipts, Dastan failed to topple Shrek, and with so many new films coming down the pipe, its unlikely that we’re going to see any numbers jump. During a summer movie season, its hard to stay at #1 past one weekend (unless you’re a green ogre), so Prince only had about one week to make its money…luckily, the international reception was strong, so Prince of Persia covered its budget, but that’s hardly enough to justify a sequel. Above all, you don’t have to be a fan of the video game series or video games in particular to enjoy Prince of Persia. It’s a little long and the plot is weak in parts, but it is still an entertaining film. Is it something you should rush out of the house to see? No. Is it the best action movie we’ll see this summer? Probably not. But, if you’re looking for something entertaining at the movie theater, this adaptation gets the job done.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Walt Disney Studios
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #3 with $30.1 million
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $90,100,578
Gross Revenue: $328,516,152
Budget: $200 million
Director: Mike Newell; Producer: Jerry Bruckheimer
In addition to movies, I’m a pretty big video game fan, and though I never played the Prince of Persia series, I fully respect its influence and success within the gaming world. Many video games have great stories, but for the most part, translating those stories or even variants of those stories to the silver screen have often resulted in failure. Sure, there have been some decent and successful video game adaptations, such as Resident Evil and Tomb Raider, but for every acceptable entry, there are a laundry list of failures…to name a few: Super Mario Bros., Street Fighter, Doom, Silent Hill, BloodRayne, and House of the Dead (the last two were directed by German filmmaker Uwe Boll, who keeps making absolutely awful movies…seriously, how does this guy keep getting funding?). On the other end of the spectrum, trying to make video games of popular films to release alongside the theatrical presentation is also a common marketing practice, and more often the not, the games are rushed through development with little concern for quality. Movies and video games, two popular entertainment mediums, but historically, they have not mixed well. So, needless to say, a big-budget summer movie based on a relatively unknown video game series is a bit of a gamble.
From a marketing perspective, it is obvious that a video game movie is aimed at the male teen and young adult demographic, but the main strategy also involved playing off the union of Jerry Bruckheimer and Walt Disney Studios…. Bruckheimer is responsible for a staggering amount of popular movies and television (CSI, The Amazing Race, Con Air, Black Hawk Down, Armageddon…just to name a few), but Bruckheimer and Disney together translate to one series, Pirates of the Caribbean. In 2003, the idea of a movie based on a theme park ride seemed ridiculous (and 2003’s Haunted Mansion proved that this notion was not entirely unfounded…oh Eddie Murphy, you ruined another movie), but with Johnny Depp, an impressive story, and stunning special effects, a legendary series was born. If Disney and Bruckheimer can make money based off of pirate animatronics, it’s not that far of a stretch to think that a video game movie could be done well. From a casting standpoint, I have no problem with Jake Gyllenhall as an actor, though I confess being doubtful that he could carry an action movie as the title character, Gemma Arterton is easy on the eyes, and well, Sir Ben Kingsley is an amazing actor…so either the movie actually is good or Ben was in desperate need of a paycheck. My curiosity was piqued, so I knew I had to see it.
As far as the plot goes, I hate to say that Prince of Persia is pretty generic, Jake Gyllenhall plays Dastan, a street peasant turned adopted prince of the Persian Empire…if Dastan’s introductory scene doesn’t remind you of a near identical scene from Disney’s Aladdin, then you’ve sadly forgotten your childhood. Long story short, Dastan is framed for the murder of the king by his evil uncle Nizam (Ben Kingsley), so he must dodge assassins and authorities as he tries to clear his name, all with the help of a beautiful princess (Gemma Arterton), and a wise cracking sidekick (Alfred Molina, in a funnier role than I’ve seen him in for a while). While this all sounds painfully generic, the unique part of the story comes from the element that made the video game series so popular, time control. Dastan has a dagger that grants him the ability to make small jumps back in time, and the special effects during these time-travel sequences are pretty impressive. At just under 2 hours, Prince of Persia takes a little too long to tell this story, but as far as popcorn flicks go, with special effects and action sequences go, it keeps you entertained.
When someone thinks of Jake Gyllenhall, action star is not the first descriptive that usually comes to mind, but surprisingly enough, Jake holds his own and convincingly plays the hero to enough of a point that you actually forget that this is the same guy who was in Bubble Boy. It’s easy to see why Sony Pictures was considering Jake as a replacement for Tobey McGuire when it was unclear if Tobey would return as Peter Parker in the second Spider-Man movie…sure they look alike, but as a bonus, now I know that Jake could have actually carried the film had the switch been made. In terms of the rest of the cast, Ben Kingsley is a convincing villain and Alfred Molina is entertaining, but I have mixed feelings about Gemma Arterton. First off, it was driving me nuts throughout the film as I tried to figure out where I had seen here before. To my great surprise, it turns out that she was Agent Strawberry Fields in 2008’s Quantum of Solace…you remember her, the obligatory female that Bond beds before she is killed and drenched in oil…yes, that was her. Wow, didn’t recognize her…talk about an upgrade. As I said earlier, she provides significant eye candy, but it doesn’t go much beyond that…there was a small amount of chemistry between her and Gyllenhall, but it seemed that by the time the film’s climax was reached, her only role was to scream the hero’s name over and over again as he navigated dangerous obstacles.
In terms of box-office receipts, Dastan failed to topple Shrek, and with so many new films coming down the pipe, its unlikely that we’re going to see any numbers jump. During a summer movie season, its hard to stay at #1 past one weekend (unless you’re a green ogre), so Prince only had about one week to make its money…luckily, the international reception was strong, so Prince of Persia covered its budget, but that’s hardly enough to justify a sequel. Above all, you don’t have to be a fan of the video game series or video games in particular to enjoy Prince of Persia. It’s a little long and the plot is weak in parts, but it is still an entertaining film. Is it something you should rush out of the house to see? No. Is it the best action movie we’ll see this summer? Probably not. But, if you’re looking for something entertaining at the movie theater, this adaptation gets the job done.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Shrek Forever After
Shrek Forever After: (May 21, 2010): PG
Distributor: Paramount Pictures (Dreamworks Animation)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $70,838,207
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $237,235,936
Gross Revenue: $678,086,512
Budget: $165 million
Director: Mike Mitchell
Even though it takes a lot to prevent me from seeing a popular movie, I confess that I have grown rather tired with the Shrek franchise over the years. The first Shrek was so refreshing, and Shrek 2 was a pleasant surprise, but Shrek the Third was disappointing and showed signs of the series wearing out, so needless to say that I initially saw this newest installment as nothing more than the big studios milking a dead cow.
Beyond the standard previews, it was relatively obvious that Shrek Forever After would do some serious damage at the box office. First and foremost, it’s the first movie of the summer to appeal directly to young children, it’s marketed as the final film of a hugely successful franchise, it’s in 3-D, and it has the promotional deal with McDonalds, not only Happy Meals, but also collector glasses that will achieve monumental reach and exposure for the film. Now, it would normally be a complete marketing and logistical nightmare when McDonald’s had to recall the promotional glasses because it was discovered that toxic materials were present. No doubt that Dreamworks and Paramount will have to do some damage control, but there is no real threat to the movie box-office because of negative customer associations, and that is simply because the recall occurred after release and after the movie made most of its money. Shrek has been #1 at the box-office for 3 weeks, beating Sex and the City 2, Prince of Persia, Get Him to the Greek, and Killers. It’s already more than covered its production budget, and any slowdown that could be expected with both A-Team and Karate Kid coming out this weekend will not be damning.
Now, for the review…I was shocked that I actually enjoyed Shrek Forever After. The cast favorites are all back, Shrek (Mike Myers), Fiona (Cameron Diaz), Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas), and where lately the series has relied on a tiring amount of characters and jokes that simply try too hard, one after the other, this latest installment seems to go back to the spirit of the original and rely on an engaging story story. When we find Shrek, he is settling into his new family role, but is growing tired of not feeling like a “real ogre” anymore. So, Shrek makes a deal with the magical Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohm), who offers Shrek one day as a real ogre in exchange for one day from Shrek’s childhood. Rumpelstiltskin actually holds a grudge against Shrek, who ruined his plans to take over the kingdom of Far Far Away years ago, and ends up taking the day that Shrek was born. As a result, Shrek is transported to an alternate universe where he has never existed, Fiona is a warrior fugitive, Donkey has no memory of Shrek, Puss in Boots is comically obese, and Rumpelstiltskin is the King of Far Far Away. In true fairy-tale fashion, Shrek has 24-hours to undue the curse by sharing love’s first kiss.
As I said before, Shrek Forever After focuses more on the central characters, significantly reducing the roles of supporting characters that have congested the earlier sequels. Antonio Banderas as a fat Puss in Boots is nothing short of hysterical. Don’t worry, Big Bad Wolf, Pinocchio, Gingerbread Man, and the Three Blind Mice are around enough to do the characters justice. The real key to the film is the villain of Rumpelstiltskin, voiced by Walt Dohrn. I remember the controversy surrounding Dohrn’s casting, considering that it was considered strange to cast a man who operates primarily as an animator and writer rather than an established actor as the main villain (as the Shrek series has often boasted A-list voice talent). Despite these concerns, Dohrn does a great job as an engaging and humorous villain, a significant upgrade from Shrek the Third’s Prince Charming. The film also has multiple references to the first film, serving as a reminder of why we all loved Shrek in the first place. Given that this is the last film in the series, there is plenty of heart and humor here to bid farewell to the beloved green ogre. Regardless of what you thought of Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third, if you were a fan of the original, you owe it to yourself to see Shrek Forever After.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures (Dreamworks Animation)
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $70,838,207
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $237,235,936
Gross Revenue: $678,086,512
Budget: $165 million
Director: Mike Mitchell
Even though it takes a lot to prevent me from seeing a popular movie, I confess that I have grown rather tired with the Shrek franchise over the years. The first Shrek was so refreshing, and Shrek 2 was a pleasant surprise, but Shrek the Third was disappointing and showed signs of the series wearing out, so needless to say that I initially saw this newest installment as nothing more than the big studios milking a dead cow.
Beyond the standard previews, it was relatively obvious that Shrek Forever After would do some serious damage at the box office. First and foremost, it’s the first movie of the summer to appeal directly to young children, it’s marketed as the final film of a hugely successful franchise, it’s in 3-D, and it has the promotional deal with McDonalds, not only Happy Meals, but also collector glasses that will achieve monumental reach and exposure for the film. Now, it would normally be a complete marketing and logistical nightmare when McDonald’s had to recall the promotional glasses because it was discovered that toxic materials were present. No doubt that Dreamworks and Paramount will have to do some damage control, but there is no real threat to the movie box-office because of negative customer associations, and that is simply because the recall occurred after release and after the movie made most of its money. Shrek has been #1 at the box-office for 3 weeks, beating Sex and the City 2, Prince of Persia, Get Him to the Greek, and Killers. It’s already more than covered its production budget, and any slowdown that could be expected with both A-Team and Karate Kid coming out this weekend will not be damning.
Now, for the review…I was shocked that I actually enjoyed Shrek Forever After. The cast favorites are all back, Shrek (Mike Myers), Fiona (Cameron Diaz), Donkey (Eddie Murphy), and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas), and where lately the series has relied on a tiring amount of characters and jokes that simply try too hard, one after the other, this latest installment seems to go back to the spirit of the original and rely on an engaging story story. When we find Shrek, he is settling into his new family role, but is growing tired of not feeling like a “real ogre” anymore. So, Shrek makes a deal with the magical Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohm), who offers Shrek one day as a real ogre in exchange for one day from Shrek’s childhood. Rumpelstiltskin actually holds a grudge against Shrek, who ruined his plans to take over the kingdom of Far Far Away years ago, and ends up taking the day that Shrek was born. As a result, Shrek is transported to an alternate universe where he has never existed, Fiona is a warrior fugitive, Donkey has no memory of Shrek, Puss in Boots is comically obese, and Rumpelstiltskin is the King of Far Far Away. In true fairy-tale fashion, Shrek has 24-hours to undue the curse by sharing love’s first kiss.
As I said before, Shrek Forever After focuses more on the central characters, significantly reducing the roles of supporting characters that have congested the earlier sequels. Antonio Banderas as a fat Puss in Boots is nothing short of hysterical. Don’t worry, Big Bad Wolf, Pinocchio, Gingerbread Man, and the Three Blind Mice are around enough to do the characters justice. The real key to the film is the villain of Rumpelstiltskin, voiced by Walt Dohrn. I remember the controversy surrounding Dohrn’s casting, considering that it was considered strange to cast a man who operates primarily as an animator and writer rather than an established actor as the main villain (as the Shrek series has often boasted A-list voice talent). Despite these concerns, Dohrn does a great job as an engaging and humorous villain, a significant upgrade from Shrek the Third’s Prince Charming. The film also has multiple references to the first film, serving as a reminder of why we all loved Shrek in the first place. Given that this is the last film in the series, there is plenty of heart and humor here to bid farewell to the beloved green ogre. Regardless of what you thought of Shrek 2 and Shrek the Third, if you were a fan of the original, you owe it to yourself to see Shrek Forever After.
Overall Recommendation: High
Robin Hood
Robin Hood (May 14, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $37.1 million, behind Iron Man 2
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $105,257,055
Gross Revenue: $310,340,427
Budget: $200 million
Director: Ridley Scott
Given that Robin Hood was the second big movie to open this summer, it had quite a bit to live-up to, especially after the juggernaut Iron Man 2. In terms of marketing, the only marketing tie-in that I really noticed had to do with Robin Hood being the “Character to Watch” on the USA network (known for the network slogan of “Characters Welcome”) the week prior to its release. It seems that the marketing campaign for Robin Hood relied primarily on previews and word-of-mouth generated by the fact that Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe were teaming up again after 2000’s financially and critically successful Gladiator. By the time Robin Hood came out in theaters, I’m pretty sure I had heard King John scream “I hereby declare him to be an OUTLAW!” fifty or so times. Truth be told, this seemed like little more than a new Gladiator or Braveheart, but considering how great both of those were and how big a fan I am of Russell Crowe, I knew I had to see this movie.
In retrospect, the title of the film is a little deceiving, in that, we are not introduced to the established forest bandit, but rather, the man who will one day become the legendary archer. I will admit that the plot is a bit confusing, dealing with French conspiracies and mistaken and assumed identities, so rather than go into deep explanation; I’m just going to go over the basics. Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer who returns from the Crusades after the death of King Richard in battle. He finds England tipping towards civil war after some unfair taxes imposed by King Richard’s newly crowned little brother, John (played superbly by Oscar Isaac). All while attempting to woo Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), Robin does his best to unite all the English lords against the common enemy of the French, who end up invading England in a climactic battle scene. Because King John sees Robin as a threat, he decides to declare him and outlaw, and from that declaration, the legend is born.
Without a doubt, there are multiple times during the film where you feel that all you are watching is an English Braveheart, and the battle scenes, though awesome in their own right, help reinforce that perception. Though it comes as little surprise to anyone, Russell Crowe was fantastic as the title character (Robin Hood has no problem kicking your ass up front or from a distance); as always, he fully researched his role, reportedly going as far as training with a bow and arrow for 4 months. He generated some criticism for mixing his accent between Irish and English, but really, I think you will be too preoccupied with the plot to notice. As mentioned earlier, Oscar Isaac played the kind of villain you love to hate, but the real evil Robin has to fight comes from Sir Godfrey (a henchman to King John played by Mark Strong); sharp-eyed movie goers will recognize Mark Strong as another recent movie-villain, the sinister Lord Blackwood from 2009’s Sherlock Holmes… and though I haven’t seen it (yet), Strong also played a villain in 2010’s Kick-Ass, the man is a pretty convincing bad-guy. I was also surprised by Cate Blanchett; I normally don’t find her that appealing, but her sassy take on the classic character makes for a welcoming leading lady.
Bottom-line, if you are expecting Robin Hood to be anything ground-breaking or completely original, you will be disappointed, but I think that the story is much more enjoyable if you are familiar with the story of the Robin Hood legend. When Robin meets Little John or Friar Tuck for the first time, it’s a nice allusion to the strong allies they will eventually become. Though the film didn’t take the top box-office, it performed strongly enough to make its budget back; critical reaction has been mixed, and admittedly, the film isn’t perfect. But if you’re looking for a good popcorn flick, are a fan of Russell Crowe, Gladiator, or Braveheart, its worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Distributor: Universal Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #2 with $37.1 million, behind Iron Man 2
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $105,257,055
Gross Revenue: $310,340,427
Budget: $200 million
Director: Ridley Scott
Given that Robin Hood was the second big movie to open this summer, it had quite a bit to live-up to, especially after the juggernaut Iron Man 2. In terms of marketing, the only marketing tie-in that I really noticed had to do with Robin Hood being the “Character to Watch” on the USA network (known for the network slogan of “Characters Welcome”) the week prior to its release. It seems that the marketing campaign for Robin Hood relied primarily on previews and word-of-mouth generated by the fact that Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe were teaming up again after 2000’s financially and critically successful Gladiator. By the time Robin Hood came out in theaters, I’m pretty sure I had heard King John scream “I hereby declare him to be an OUTLAW!” fifty or so times. Truth be told, this seemed like little more than a new Gladiator or Braveheart, but considering how great both of those were and how big a fan I am of Russell Crowe, I knew I had to see this movie.
In retrospect, the title of the film is a little deceiving, in that, we are not introduced to the established forest bandit, but rather, the man who will one day become the legendary archer. I will admit that the plot is a bit confusing, dealing with French conspiracies and mistaken and assumed identities, so rather than go into deep explanation; I’m just going to go over the basics. Russell Crowe plays Robin Longstride, an archer who returns from the Crusades after the death of King Richard in battle. He finds England tipping towards civil war after some unfair taxes imposed by King Richard’s newly crowned little brother, John (played superbly by Oscar Isaac). All while attempting to woo Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), Robin does his best to unite all the English lords against the common enemy of the French, who end up invading England in a climactic battle scene. Because King John sees Robin as a threat, he decides to declare him and outlaw, and from that declaration, the legend is born.
Without a doubt, there are multiple times during the film where you feel that all you are watching is an English Braveheart, and the battle scenes, though awesome in their own right, help reinforce that perception. Though it comes as little surprise to anyone, Russell Crowe was fantastic as the title character (Robin Hood has no problem kicking your ass up front or from a distance); as always, he fully researched his role, reportedly going as far as training with a bow and arrow for 4 months. He generated some criticism for mixing his accent between Irish and English, but really, I think you will be too preoccupied with the plot to notice. As mentioned earlier, Oscar Isaac played the kind of villain you love to hate, but the real evil Robin has to fight comes from Sir Godfrey (a henchman to King John played by Mark Strong); sharp-eyed movie goers will recognize Mark Strong as another recent movie-villain, the sinister Lord Blackwood from 2009’s Sherlock Holmes… and though I haven’t seen it (yet), Strong also played a villain in 2010’s Kick-Ass, the man is a pretty convincing bad-guy. I was also surprised by Cate Blanchett; I normally don’t find her that appealing, but her sassy take on the classic character makes for a welcoming leading lady.
Bottom-line, if you are expecting Robin Hood to be anything ground-breaking or completely original, you will be disappointed, but I think that the story is much more enjoyable if you are familiar with the story of the Robin Hood legend. When Robin meets Little John or Friar Tuck for the first time, it’s a nice allusion to the strong allies they will eventually become. Though the film didn’t take the top box-office, it performed strongly enough to make its budget back; critical reaction has been mixed, and admittedly, the film isn’t perfect. But if you’re looking for a good popcorn flick, are a fan of Russell Crowe, Gladiator, or Braveheart, its worth seeing.
Overall Recommendation: Medium
Iron Man 2
Iron Man 2: (May 7, 2010): PG-13
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $128,122,480
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $312,057,433
Gross Revenue: $621,659,433
Budget: $170 - $200 million
Director: Jon Favreau
First off, its pretty easy to call Iron Man 2 one of the most anticipated movies of the summer, not only did it benefit from being released on the first official weekend of the summer movie season (a position coveted by studios), and very positive memories of 2008’s hugely successful Iron Man, but from a marketing standpoint, it had a staggering number of promotional tie-ins. Burger King put its “King” in Iron Man armor, Audi promoted its newest model as the pinnacle of Stark technology (plus Tony drives one in the film), and comics legend Stan Lee made a cameo in a commercial where a janitor is “suited up” by Stark’s computer Jarvis into a Dr. Pepper machine. And let’s not forget that Iron Man’s face was on nearly every Dr. Pepper can available. Seriously, who didn’t know that Iron Man 2 was coming out and was anticipated to be one of the biggest movies of the summer?
Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in the first Iron Man was spectacular, given his past and his ability to overcome adversity, no actor in Hollywood was better “suited” to play Tony Stark. Let’s face it, superhero movies are usually box-office gold, and with its extremely dedicated fan base, it’s important to stay true to the source material and the spirit of the character. For instance, I have long said that whoever cast George Clooney as Batman in Batman and Robin should have lost his job…don’t get me wrong, George Clooney is an amazing actor, but he is NOT Batman. Anyway, back to Iron Man. After the first film, the introduction of the character was complete, and now it was up to director Jon Favreau to successfully navigate the talented cast through the complicated character mythology.
In this sequel, Tony Stark is now settling into his role as Iron Man, but given that he revealed his identity to the world at the end of the first film, he must deal with others attempting to replicate and control his weapons technology. One of the more humorous scenes in the movie comes from a Congressional meeting where a Senator Sterns (played by Gary Shandling) tries to convince Stark to turn over the Iron Man armor to the U.S. Government. Adding to Tony’s stress is the fact that the original arc reactor that he built in the first movie is slowly poisoning him (ironically keeping him alive and killing him at the same time). As a result, Tony’s behavior becomes more erratic and self-destructive, which actually a nice nod to the classic Iron Man storyline in the comics, “Demon in a Bottle,” where Stark battles alcoholism. Tony also finds himself the target of a vengeful inventor Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke, who apparently visited Russian prisons as part of researching his role). Fun fact: Vanko’s character is actually a cross between two Iron Man villains from the comics, Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo, and the movie faithfully references both of these influences. With all of these threats, Tony has the help of two new allies, War Machine and Black Widow. War Machine is Colonel Rhodes’ (Don Cheadle) heroic alter ego, who was referenced in the first film, and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is a top agent for the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D (also from the first film. With these two character additions, comic fans were sure to be more than pleased.
Overall, I loved the movie…not a hard stretch considering that I’m a superhero fanatic, but at the same time, there are a few criticisms. Iron Man 2 lacks some of the charm of the original, but I believe that is because both Robert Downey Jr.’s performance and the overall introduction of the character of Iron Man were such pleasant surprises for the movie-going public back in 2008. Now that the shock and awe has worn off, its hard to replicate the quality of the original. That being said, Robert Downey Jr. delivers yet again, and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Don Cheadle as Colonel Rhodes. Terrence Howard fit the role perfectly in the first film, and many were disappointed when it was announced that he would not return for the sequel (rumors range between Howard asking for too much money to director Jon Favreau not liking his performance in the first film). Either way, switching actors of an established character between sequels is a risky move, but Cheadle got the job done.
A good example of where a switch like this could backfire would be Chris Nolan switching Maggie Gyllenhaal for Katie Holmes as ADA Rachel Dawes in the most recent Batman films, but that involved switching an attractive actress with no real acting talent for a good actress who wasn’t quite attractive enough to justify both Batman and Harvey Dent fighting over her; but, the character was killed off, so bring on Catwoman as the next love interest. Speaking of love interests, fans of Scarlett Johansson will be more than pleased with her character of Black Widow in Iron Man 2, primarily because she kicks the crap out of henchmen while in a skin-tight leather jumpsuit. Even Mickey Rourke (whose career comeback started with 2008’s The Wrestler), did a great job as the villain, wearing enough tattoos and spouting enough Russian to assure the audience that he was a threat. The story was a little weak at times, but there’s enough special effects to keep the key demographic of males aged 18-35 more than happy…suffice to say that there were enough badass explosions and special effects to make Michael Bay jealous.
My two biggest criticisms from the film are Gwyneth Paltrow and Sam Rockwell. Forget the fact that Jon Favreau put a little too much of his character Happy Hogan (Stark’s driver) in his own movie compared to the first film, these characters are worthy of more criticisms. Paltrow’s Pepper Potts was an engaging and sarcastic love interest in the fist film, but in this sequel she is reduced to merely complaining and yelling at Stark, to the point where the audience’s reaction is akin to: “He’s Iron Man, he’s saving the world, and he just promoted you, get off his back!” And then there’s Sam Rockwell. I have tremendous respect for Sam Rockwell as an actor (his “Wild Bill” from The Green Mile still creeps me out), but in Iron Man 2, he was just annoying. Rockwell plays Justin Hammer, a business rival to Tony Stark who hires Vanko to replicate Stark’s technology. There was plenty of room for villainy here (his comic counterpart is notoriously sinister), but Rockwell’s character couldn’t decide whether he was evil or not, whining about deals made and at one point dancing across the screen while making a presentation…it was like, “nice try, but get off the screen, you’re done.” Aside from these two characters, I still maintain that any fans of the first Iron Man film owe it to themselves to see this sequel.
Now, the other big part of the Iron Man franchise involves tie-ins to the rest of the Marvel Universe that will culminate in 2012’s The Avengers. Think of the Avengers as the Marvel Comics Justice League (made up of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk). In addition to Stan Lee’s cameos in nearly every Marvel movie, the writers are doing an excellent job of tying the Marvel Universe together. The government organization that leads the Avengers (S.H.I.E.L.D.) was introduced in the first film, Captain America’s shield was briefly seen, and Samuel L. Jackson appeared in a post-credit scene as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D. (perfect casting when you consider Samuel L. Jackson is actually the character model for Nick Fury in the comics). Robert Downey Jr. also made a cameo as Tony Stark in 2008’s The Incredible Hulk (which was way better than anyone gave it credit for). Now, in Iron Man 2, Captain America’s shield makes a big appearance and the hammer of Thor is shown in a post-credits scene. With Thor and Captain America: the First Avenger due out next summer, (Chris Evans has apparently signed on to play Captain America in as many as 11 films and subsequent tie-ins) it’s going to be quite interesting to see how the rest of these Marvel powerhouses are portrayed on-screen.
Iron Man 2 isn’t as strong a sequel as past classics Spider-Man 2 and X2: X-Men United, but it is still enjoyable and worth seeing. Hopefully Marvel can make some tweaks and deliver a strong Iron Man 3…considering that Marvel usually drops the ball closing out a trilogy (Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand were easily the weakest of their respective series). Only time will tell.
Overall Recommendation: High
Distributor: Paramount Pictures
Opening Weekend Box-Office: #1 with $128,122,480
Domestic Box-Office Gross to-date: $312,057,433
Gross Revenue: $621,659,433
Budget: $170 - $200 million
Director: Jon Favreau
First off, its pretty easy to call Iron Man 2 one of the most anticipated movies of the summer, not only did it benefit from being released on the first official weekend of the summer movie season (a position coveted by studios), and very positive memories of 2008’s hugely successful Iron Man, but from a marketing standpoint, it had a staggering number of promotional tie-ins. Burger King put its “King” in Iron Man armor, Audi promoted its newest model as the pinnacle of Stark technology (plus Tony drives one in the film), and comics legend Stan Lee made a cameo in a commercial where a janitor is “suited up” by Stark’s computer Jarvis into a Dr. Pepper machine. And let’s not forget that Iron Man’s face was on nearly every Dr. Pepper can available. Seriously, who didn’t know that Iron Man 2 was coming out and was anticipated to be one of the biggest movies of the summer?
Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in the first Iron Man was spectacular, given his past and his ability to overcome adversity, no actor in Hollywood was better “suited” to play Tony Stark. Let’s face it, superhero movies are usually box-office gold, and with its extremely dedicated fan base, it’s important to stay true to the source material and the spirit of the character. For instance, I have long said that whoever cast George Clooney as Batman in Batman and Robin should have lost his job…don’t get me wrong, George Clooney is an amazing actor, but he is NOT Batman. Anyway, back to Iron Man. After the first film, the introduction of the character was complete, and now it was up to director Jon Favreau to successfully navigate the talented cast through the complicated character mythology.
In this sequel, Tony Stark is now settling into his role as Iron Man, but given that he revealed his identity to the world at the end of the first film, he must deal with others attempting to replicate and control his weapons technology. One of the more humorous scenes in the movie comes from a Congressional meeting where a Senator Sterns (played by Gary Shandling) tries to convince Stark to turn over the Iron Man armor to the U.S. Government. Adding to Tony’s stress is the fact that the original arc reactor that he built in the first movie is slowly poisoning him (ironically keeping him alive and killing him at the same time). As a result, Tony’s behavior becomes more erratic and self-destructive, which actually a nice nod to the classic Iron Man storyline in the comics, “Demon in a Bottle,” where Stark battles alcoholism. Tony also finds himself the target of a vengeful inventor Ivan Vanko (played by Mickey Rourke, who apparently visited Russian prisons as part of researching his role). Fun fact: Vanko’s character is actually a cross between two Iron Man villains from the comics, Whiplash and Crimson Dynamo, and the movie faithfully references both of these influences. With all of these threats, Tony has the help of two new allies, War Machine and Black Widow. War Machine is Colonel Rhodes’ (Don Cheadle) heroic alter ego, who was referenced in the first film, and Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) is a top agent for the government agency S.H.I.E.L.D (also from the first film. With these two character additions, comic fans were sure to be more than pleased.
Overall, I loved the movie…not a hard stretch considering that I’m a superhero fanatic, but at the same time, there are a few criticisms. Iron Man 2 lacks some of the charm of the original, but I believe that is because both Robert Downey Jr.’s performance and the overall introduction of the character of Iron Man were such pleasant surprises for the movie-going public back in 2008. Now that the shock and awe has worn off, its hard to replicate the quality of the original. That being said, Robert Downey Jr. delivers yet again, and I was surprised by how much I enjoyed Don Cheadle as Colonel Rhodes. Terrence Howard fit the role perfectly in the first film, and many were disappointed when it was announced that he would not return for the sequel (rumors range between Howard asking for too much money to director Jon Favreau not liking his performance in the first film). Either way, switching actors of an established character between sequels is a risky move, but Cheadle got the job done.
A good example of where a switch like this could backfire would be Chris Nolan switching Maggie Gyllenhaal for Katie Holmes as ADA Rachel Dawes in the most recent Batman films, but that involved switching an attractive actress with no real acting talent for a good actress who wasn’t quite attractive enough to justify both Batman and Harvey Dent fighting over her; but, the character was killed off, so bring on Catwoman as the next love interest. Speaking of love interests, fans of Scarlett Johansson will be more than pleased with her character of Black Widow in Iron Man 2, primarily because she kicks the crap out of henchmen while in a skin-tight leather jumpsuit. Even Mickey Rourke (whose career comeback started with 2008’s The Wrestler), did a great job as the villain, wearing enough tattoos and spouting enough Russian to assure the audience that he was a threat. The story was a little weak at times, but there’s enough special effects to keep the key demographic of males aged 18-35 more than happy…suffice to say that there were enough badass explosions and special effects to make Michael Bay jealous.
My two biggest criticisms from the film are Gwyneth Paltrow and Sam Rockwell. Forget the fact that Jon Favreau put a little too much of his character Happy Hogan (Stark’s driver) in his own movie compared to the first film, these characters are worthy of more criticisms. Paltrow’s Pepper Potts was an engaging and sarcastic love interest in the fist film, but in this sequel she is reduced to merely complaining and yelling at Stark, to the point where the audience’s reaction is akin to: “He’s Iron Man, he’s saving the world, and he just promoted you, get off his back!” And then there’s Sam Rockwell. I have tremendous respect for Sam Rockwell as an actor (his “Wild Bill” from The Green Mile still creeps me out), but in Iron Man 2, he was just annoying. Rockwell plays Justin Hammer, a business rival to Tony Stark who hires Vanko to replicate Stark’s technology. There was plenty of room for villainy here (his comic counterpart is notoriously sinister), but Rockwell’s character couldn’t decide whether he was evil or not, whining about deals made and at one point dancing across the screen while making a presentation…it was like, “nice try, but get off the screen, you’re done.” Aside from these two characters, I still maintain that any fans of the first Iron Man film owe it to themselves to see this sequel.
Now, the other big part of the Iron Man franchise involves tie-ins to the rest of the Marvel Universe that will culminate in 2012’s The Avengers. Think of the Avengers as the Marvel Comics Justice League (made up of Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and the Hulk). In addition to Stan Lee’s cameos in nearly every Marvel movie, the writers are doing an excellent job of tying the Marvel Universe together. The government organization that leads the Avengers (S.H.I.E.L.D.) was introduced in the first film, Captain America’s shield was briefly seen, and Samuel L. Jackson appeared in a post-credit scene as Nick Fury, the head of S.H.I.E.L.D. (perfect casting when you consider Samuel L. Jackson is actually the character model for Nick Fury in the comics). Robert Downey Jr. also made a cameo as Tony Stark in 2008’s The Incredible Hulk (which was way better than anyone gave it credit for). Now, in Iron Man 2, Captain America’s shield makes a big appearance and the hammer of Thor is shown in a post-credits scene. With Thor and Captain America: the First Avenger due out next summer, (Chris Evans has apparently signed on to play Captain America in as many as 11 films and subsequent tie-ins) it’s going to be quite interesting to see how the rest of these Marvel powerhouses are portrayed on-screen.
Iron Man 2 isn’t as strong a sequel as past classics Spider-Man 2 and X2: X-Men United, but it is still enjoyable and worth seeing. Hopefully Marvel can make some tweaks and deliver a strong Iron Man 3…considering that Marvel usually drops the ball closing out a trilogy (Spider-Man 3 and X-Men: The Last Stand were easily the weakest of their respective series). Only time will tell.
Overall Recommendation: High
Welcome
Welcome everyone, to Pantages’ Theater! My name is Ryan Pantages, and though I’m not affiliated with the famous theater, I am using this blog to talk about the Summer Movie Season!
I am a recent graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and will soon be attending Loyola Marymount for my MBA. As a marketing major, I am hoping to combine my education with my passion for film into a career in the entertainment marketing industry. I have several contacts at Sony Pictures, NBC, and Fox, and I want to be able to show them that I can use social media to discuss popular films and their marketing procedures…if I get enough followers, I eventually plan to turn this blog into a website.
I am an absolute movie fanatic, I follow many popular films and delight in learning as much as I can about a popular release before it occurs. Here’s how it will work, I plan to see most of the movies released during this summer movie season, and I will post reviews that not only discuss the quality of the film, but marketing tactics I noticed and any other random information associated with the film that I am aware of. I’m obviously not going to notice every marketing tactic, but its important to consider what the general public notices. I will try to be as up-to-date as possible, but there are some movies I choose not to see. I am not a fan of Sex and the City, so I won’t be seeing the sequel. Plus, Splice, Killers, and Marmaduke all looked terrible, and based on early reviews, I made the right move passing those up.
In addition to my reviews, I have also posted box-office revenue and performance figures (courtesy of Box Office Mojo.com). While these are not the primary focus of the blog, movies are still a business, and I pride myself on predicting the top grossing movies every summer. My record is pretty strong…I called The Dark Knight and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen a mile a way, but this summer is a little more challenging. Iron Man 2 and Shrek Forever After have performed quite well, but I think there are other threats out there. Disney/Pixar is releasing Toy-Story 3, and given the company’s reputation and the movie’s legacy, it will be hard to beat. But, as much as it pains me, my final prediction shows that Twilight: Eclipse could take the top spot. This movie series’ following is staggering, and considering that it took nearly every reward at this year’s MTV Movie Awards, I think it will lead the season…let’s just wait and see.
My reviews may seem a little long, but that just shows how much I consider with each movie. I rank my overall recommendation on a five-point scale: Very Low, Low, Medium, High, and Very High. I’m not saying that you have to read everything, just check back every once and a while and see what’s playing. Any comments or questions on the movies I have reviewed are welcome. I want to get people excited about movies, enjoy!
I am a recent graduate of the University of Notre Dame, and will soon be attending Loyola Marymount for my MBA. As a marketing major, I am hoping to combine my education with my passion for film into a career in the entertainment marketing industry. I have several contacts at Sony Pictures, NBC, and Fox, and I want to be able to show them that I can use social media to discuss popular films and their marketing procedures…if I get enough followers, I eventually plan to turn this blog into a website.
I am an absolute movie fanatic, I follow many popular films and delight in learning as much as I can about a popular release before it occurs. Here’s how it will work, I plan to see most of the movies released during this summer movie season, and I will post reviews that not only discuss the quality of the film, but marketing tactics I noticed and any other random information associated with the film that I am aware of. I’m obviously not going to notice every marketing tactic, but its important to consider what the general public notices. I will try to be as up-to-date as possible, but there are some movies I choose not to see. I am not a fan of Sex and the City, so I won’t be seeing the sequel. Plus, Splice, Killers, and Marmaduke all looked terrible, and based on early reviews, I made the right move passing those up.
In addition to my reviews, I have also posted box-office revenue and performance figures (courtesy of Box Office Mojo.com). While these are not the primary focus of the blog, movies are still a business, and I pride myself on predicting the top grossing movies every summer. My record is pretty strong…I called The Dark Knight and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen a mile a way, but this summer is a little more challenging. Iron Man 2 and Shrek Forever After have performed quite well, but I think there are other threats out there. Disney/Pixar is releasing Toy-Story 3, and given the company’s reputation and the movie’s legacy, it will be hard to beat. But, as much as it pains me, my final prediction shows that Twilight: Eclipse could take the top spot. This movie series’ following is staggering, and considering that it took nearly every reward at this year’s MTV Movie Awards, I think it will lead the season…let’s just wait and see.
My reviews may seem a little long, but that just shows how much I consider with each movie. I rank my overall recommendation on a five-point scale: Very Low, Low, Medium, High, and Very High. I’m not saying that you have to read everything, just check back every once and a while and see what’s playing. Any comments or questions on the movies I have reviewed are welcome. I want to get people excited about movies, enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)