While "Star Trek: Into Darkness" is a competent enough movie, I'm not sure how much people who aren't fans of Star Trek will really enjoy it. On its own, the film has too much plot (a good chunk of which is unnecessary), is more caricature than character, and the big reveals are pretty much meaningless to anyone who doesn't follow Star Trek. Even worse, for those of you who do remember the first film of the Star Trek reboot, it's too much of the same from the original. The film starts and somehow Captain Kirk and Dr. Spock are right back to having the same character flaws that they supposedly got over in the first film. And then there's Karl Urban doing his DeForrest Kelley imitation over and over and over and over again. The film truly feels like guys who got away with some mimicry in the first film decided that that's all they had to deliver this time around. The end result was a rather bland two hours.
And if you have a problem with some of the Bad Robot team's questionable habits, be prepared to be even more annoyed this time around. Almost every key scene is undercut by too much lens flare or Karl Urban's Bones imitation or some other oddly timed comic relief. Ironically (or fittingly if you're on Team Kirk), logic isn't a main concern and decisions are made and events occur mostly because the film needs them to happen, not because they make sense.
I thought I was disengaged with Iron Man 3 but this film is even more off-kilter and seemingly a comedy trapped in an action movie than that flick. The film never hooked me back into the world and instead seemed to be more focused on referencing past world and expecting that to carry the day. Overall, I wasn't a fan and I'm just going to have to tap out of future Bad Robot adventures (while hoping that Kathleen Kennedy and Michael Arndt can save JJ Abrams from himself.); their brand of storytelling and filmmaking simply isn't my bag. Although it wasn't just me this time around. Most of the audience was disappointed, except for a handful of trekkies who might not have gotten what they wanted but at least got to see things they think are cool and were happy to see. It's a definite step down from the first film and is probably best served as a rental.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:53 AM | Permalink| |Digg It!

The bad buzz on World War Z is going to make me go with my gut and drop it off the list. Picking someone for that spot is tough and I probably should just go with an animated flick but I really liked the new trailer for "White House Down" so I'm going to say that that flick is going to take #9. That might be wishful thinking but I'd love to see more buddy-action comedies in the future.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:57 AM | Permalink| |Digg It!

2013 is shaping up to be one of the wildest summers in box office prediction history and, I'm sad to say, that I think for most movies, 2013 will live up to its nickname "The Year of Bad Luck". Whenever people complain about too many sequels, they should look back at this summer, which is jam packed with risky propositions. In fact, I think there are only really seven sure things this year and all of them are sequels or, in the case of Superman, based off of an existing, established brand.

Before we get into the murky waters of the summer of 2013, let's look at what I consider to be the Seven Sure Things of Summer and how much I think they'll bring home. (And, as always, this is just domestic box office, not worldwide.)

1. Iron Man 3: 400 Million - Third movies often dip in terms of box office, especially after a sub-par outing like Iron Man 2, but I think that being the first major film of the summer (always a boost to a film's box office) coupled the strength of The Avengers will power Iron Man to close to 400 million domestically. Also, I think the film will have more legs because I have faith in Shane Black's writing and think it'll be the best Iron Man movie to date.

2. Man of Steel: 375 million - Honestly, I was a little worried about the latest Supes movie until the new trailer came out. The film still raises the Nolan-Monologue-Fest red flags but since that's never hurt his box office in the past and seems to be more of a personal pet peeve, I'm not holding it against Man of Steel. The reason I'm not going bigger than 375 million is because: a) this is coming on the heels of Superman Returns, which was a major disappointment, b) first movies don't often break the bank, it's the second films that reap the huge box office, and c) Man of Steel has zero breathing room, opening against This is The End and having Monsters University and World War Z opening the next weekend, followed by The Heat and White House Down. It's going to be tough for the Man of Steel to have the legs to carry it past the 400 million mark.

3. Star Trek: Into Darkness: 315 million: Honestly, I wasn't a huge fan of the first JJ Abrams-helmed Trek film and I'm not a huge fan of Abrams's work overall but I can't overlook the fact that most people think I'm stupid for not liking him. Personally, I think the world would be a better place is someone at a studio told JJ that he could never use lens flare or alternate dimensions ever again but that issue aside, Star Trek made 250 million and second movies of popular flicks usually see a good bump. The reason I'm not going with a huge boost in box office is because the following weekend sees Fast and Furious 6 and Hangover 3 opening up (as well as the kids flick Epic).

4. Monsters University: 277 million - Pixar is always a safe bet to make the top ten (actually, the top 5) each summer although I'm not as gung-ho on Monsters University as I would be on most Pixar sequels. The Monsters don't seem to be as big of a draw as many of the other Pixar faves. and Pixar also has been on a downslide for a bit and this year is filled with competition, primarily Despicable Me 2 which opens just two weeks after Monsters U. Still, I hate to bet against Pixar and if Brave can make 230+ million than I don't think Monsters University will face much adversity. I'm betting against it breaking 300 million but it should be able to break the 250 million mark with some ease.

5. Despicable Me 2: 263 million - Despicable Me was a big surprise and I wouldn't be stunned if it ended up beating Monsters University but it's got some competition on its opening weekend in The Lone Ranger and, for some reason, I'm still not sold enough to predict that it'll beat Monsters U. or crack 300 million, although opening on July 4th weekend will definitely help.

6. The Hangover 3: 204 million - Not many people liked The Hangover 2 and while the latest trailers for the new Hangover are more interesting because they seem to be breaking somewhat from the formula, it still looks like more of the same, I think the Ken Jeong bandwagon has come to a stop, and franchises' third films almost always see a drop in box office, especially when they are following a disappointing second effort. Add in the fact that The Hangover is opening against Fast and Furious 6 and I think there's zero chance that they come close to the box office of the second film and I wouldn't be surprised if the film failed to crack 200 million.

7. Fast and Furious 6: 170 million - Fast 5 benefited from being the first major summer movie. As noted, Furious 6's opening weekend couldn't be more different than that - it'll already have two blockbusters in theaters when it opens (Star Trek and Iron Man) as well as another high profile release in The Great Gatsby and it opens against a kid's film Epic and Hangover III, which has the same target demo. On the bright side, the following two weekends are shaky at best. The Purge and Now You See Me both look good but neither scream blockbuster and the next weekend is After Earth and The Internship, two strong candidates for Flop of the Year (The Internship would be a lock for that title but I don't know if it cost that much to make.) So while I wouldn't be stunned if Fast and Furious 6 stumbled a bit this summer (and I don't think there's any way it matches Fast Five's box office take), I still feel comfortable putting it in the top ten.

Now that we've covered the Solid Seven, who the hell fills the final three slots?! Let's roll through the contenders.

The Great Gatsby: Looks interesting, great cast but sandwiched between sure things Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into Darkness.
After Earth: Tough to bet against Will Smith but Men in Black III opened to around 50 million and, with Man of Steel opening the week after this one bows, it'll need a much bigger opening weekend to make big money. I'm not seeing it.
This is The End: The Apatow Gang's meta-apocalypse comedy would be a dark horse if it wasn't opening against Man of Steel.
World War Z: This one's a contender but it has a ton of bad buzz, is opening in the wake of Superman, and has little breathing room in the following weekends.
White House Down: We just saw a similar movie in "Olympus has Fallen" and it's in the middle of a crowded slate and opens against "The Heat".
The Heat: Melissa McCarthy is hot right now and Sandra Bullock is a bonafide star and it has the Bridesmaids connection but is there enough in a pretty stupid looking comedy to connect to a wife female audience and draw in the fellas?
The Lone Ranger: Worldwide, this will do well. Domestically? I'm not hearing much buzz, Pirates of the Caribbean's last outing won't help, and Despicable Me opens against it, hurting the family draw.
Grown Ups 2: The original made 162 million and every Adam Sandler summer movie in the Aughts broke 100 million. Since then, he's struggled and That's My Boy might have been the death knell. Also, good luck getting the youth market with Pacific Rim opening up against it.
Pacific Rim: It's a big, dumb aliens fighting humans in giant robots movie. I just don't see it having enough initial draw to open big and a lot of middling fare opens after it which will likely keep it from having legs.
The Wolverine: X-Men: First Class only made 146 million and Jackman's last two stints as Wolverine saw diminishing returns, both in terms of quality and box office. The trailers haven't been that impressive and it faces competition in the second week in 2 Guns (Denzel, Mark Wahlberg) and the 300 sequel.
300: Rise of an Empire: Feels more like a straight-to-DVD sequel than a blockbuster. Is anyone still interested in a sequel to 300?
Smurfs 2: The first Smurfs movie made 146 million but was panned. Disney's Planes opens the following weekend so it'll take a big weekend to make money and I'm not seeing it having a big weekend.
Planes: Cars was kind of a disappointing film for Pixar so I can't imagine that this rip-off/fake spin-off is going to be able to muster much money, especially at the end of a summer that has been filled with animated features. Elysium: A heady sci-fi flick starring Matt Damon and Jodie Foster (from the director of District 9) has a tough road to hoe since it's coming at the end of the summer filled with sci-fi movies.
Kick Ass 2: As much as I loved the first one, it didn't make a ton of money and I'm not seeing it have the same draw as something like Austin Powers, which went from making 50 million first time around to 200 million for the sequel.
The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones: It's a big teen lit franchise but only HUGE teen lit franchises seem to make money, especially in a crowded summer like this.

So, now that we've seen the contenders, who do I think will make the cut?

8. The Heat: 136 million - "The Heat" opens against "White House Down", which could cause a problem, but Identity Thief made 132 million (and a surprising amount of people seemed to enjoy it) and Bullock is a much bigger draw than Jason Bateman. I'm going to bet on McCarthy and Bullock being able to break 100 million and move close to 150.

9. Wolverine: 127 million: X-Men: First Class re-instilled people's faith in the X-Men franchise and Wolverine is still one of the coolest characters out there and now he's fighting ninjas. Also, it's one of the few post-June films this summer that opens against little or no competition.

10. World War Z: 114 million: 'm kind of rooting against this film because it looks stupid but takes itself seriously and it has a rough opening weekend and the more I type the more I want to pick something else for this slot but I'm going to bet on zombies and Brad Pitt to bring in enough people.

Looking it over, I feel pretty good about my guesses of WHO will make the top ten but I feel pretty terrible about my stabs at how much money the films will make. But I just can't shake the feeling that this summer has too many mediocre offerings for many of the so-so films to really make much money.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:56 AM | Permalink| |Digg It!

"It's a Disaster" is a new film about a couples brunch gone awry with personal issues and a terrorist attack. It's a clever indie comedy with a good number of laughs but, for some reason, it just doesn't rise above being decent. I'd definitely recommend checking it out some time but it's not necessarily a film that people have to see in theaters and I wouldn't say that you HAVE to see it. It's worth checking out but you won't really miss anything if you skip it.

Everything about the movie is solid. The acting is good. The jokes are good. The pacing is a little odd at times but overall it never really drags and keeps things motoring. Everything is a little too under control and too many of the personal elements are cliched that it never is free to really let loose and get big laughs. It also doesn't really make any sort of statement besides focusing on small-mindedness and the banality of suburban life, but even then it's more of an observation than biting critique.

Again, I'd definitely recommend throwing it on your Netflix queue or checking it out if you have nothing else to do but it's the epitome of a festival darling - amongst other low budget, indie films, it stands out but at your local multiplex and going against other films and options on TV, it's entertaining enough but nothing amazing.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:50 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

"Welcome to the Punch" is a British crime drama starring the hit-or-miss James McAvoy and the always awesome Mark Strong as well as Andrea Riseborough, who plays Tom Cruise's partner in Oblivion. While I'm a fan of crime dramas and can usually forgive films for being familiar or cliched (which this most certainly is), this film couldn't even get the cliches right. You know every note before it even hits and when it does hit, it's underwhelming. The love story between McAvoy and Riseborough is one scene long and feels unnecessarily slapped in. The master plan basically feels like a non-entity for most of the film. In fact, most people aren't even aware of the MacGuffin until the end of the second act. It's hard to say if there's anybody who you think you can't trust because there's not really anyone who you think you can trust. The best way to describe it might be sub-generic.

The film has a glossy sheen to it that reminds me of commercials or 90's rap videos and it seems like director Eran Creevy could be a good gun for hire as a director but I think he'd be better off hiring someone else to write his next film for him. Not that the movie is terrible and there are indeed a couple of cool scenes but there's just an overall lack of substance that makes the film instantly forgettable.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:43 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

The pilot for NBC's Silence of the Lambs' spin-off "Hannibal" aired last night and the film looks amazing and has some good performances but, my lord, did they ever go out of their way to explain that the main character, Will Graham, has some personality issues. The actual serial killings were almost an afterthought because the show had to tell us in scene after scene that Graham empathized with killers and couldn't get too close to those emotions or he'd lose it. Also, if you don't know the story of Hannibal Lecter, I 'm not sure how well the show would work for you. At one point, cannibalism is mentioned and then there's a hard cut to Lecter (whom we haven't seen at all in the show to this point) eating meat. After the act break, we finally meet him but it's only in a sort of "You know this guy's evil, right?" sort of way. I feel like they missed some opportunities to tell us anything about Lecter because they spent most of the time focusing on how close Graham was to being a loon.

Still, the pilot was good enough to keep me intrigued and I'm interested to see how they continue with the show and how the partnership between Lecter and Graham grows. There are definitely a lot of hurdles for this show to clear to really become great but I'm still hopeful that they'll be able to navigate around the possible trouble spots and make a great show.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:01 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

If there has ever been a filmmaker who can't keep up his career momentum, it's Danny Boyle. It seems like every time he gets in a groove, he suddenly goes off the rails. After a great start with the underseen Shallow Grave and Trainspotting, Boyle slipped up with A Life Less Ordinary. I also wasn't a fan of The Beach but Boyle was back on his game for 28 Days Later. Millions was supposed to be a nice little film but then, and I know I might be in the minority of this one, but things fell apart once again with Sunshine. But Boyle then picked himself up with Slumdog Millionaire and 127 Hours.

And now we have Trance.

Trance is easily one of Boyle's worst films, if not the worst. Like many films that deal with amnesia, Trance has no grounding in reality so, by the midway point, the audience really has no idea what is real and what isn't and because there's nobody in the film that we really care about, the reality of things ceases to really matter. If Trance was a book, it would be one that most people would read half of and then just skip to the end to see what happened rather than slog through the second half. Although, kudos to Danny Boyle for having the unforgettably sexy Rosario Dawson get nekkid during this second half. Honestly, full frontal Rosario is the only reason to see this film.

That's not to say the Danny didn't give it the old college try. The film is visually striking at times and the soundtrack helps propel scenes that have no real push to them but, in the end, everything is lacking, from the plot, the characters, the stakes, even the performances all seem rote.
Part of me feels like the film was missing another element, perhaps following detectives trying to hunt down the painting, to add to the tension and give our anti-heroes something to work against.
As it is, there's really no reason to see this film, besides, well, you know, Rosario.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:40 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

For all of its shortcomings, "Evil Dead" gets points from me for being a B-movie that didn't feel the need to be hamfistedly meta. While this is an "Evil Dead" remake (Note: I've never seen the original "Evil Dead" films), the tone strikes me to be along the lines of "The Happening", M. Night Shymalan's failed attempt at making the best B-movie ever. "Evil Dead" is undoubtedly silly, featuring the thinnest characters I've seen in quite some time making one unrealistically stupid decision after another, but I feel like that was the point. When the movie gets stupid, instead of knowingly winking at the audience, it goes to the hilt and gets about as dumb as you can be without, to steal a phrase from "Tropic Thunder", going "full retard".

And this is the key difference between "The Happening" and "Evil Dead"; despite not being meta, the remake of Sam Raimi's cult classic knows that, since it is a b-movie, it is supposed to be having fun. Now, for many, the "having fun" is going to be a problem. The movie is more gory than scary. The film doesn't build frightening tension as much as it builds anxious energy as you creep towards something you know is about to happen and will be disgusting to watch. There are a couple of jumps in the film but mostly it's a horror movie of the look-away-from-the-screen-because-something-gross-is-happening variety. When a character approaches a dangerous situation, there isn't a "Don't Go in That Room!" vibe as much as there is an eye-rolling "What the fuck is this idiot thinking?" All of that put together made the film, to me, an entertaining enough trifle but it is little more than a forgettable way to kill two hours.

And the reason that the film doesn't have a chance to ever be more than that is that, as noted before, the film's character building is little more than casting an actor and giving their character a name. There is a little backstory but it's mostly window dressing, as if someone told them they HAD to include backstory so they did it begrudgingly. The film's dialogue would probably get someone in an Intro to Screenwriting class an F and a kind suggestion to look for another line of work. In fact, the opening act is so bland that the filmmakers had to throw in a prequel scene of sorts to give the film some action before trudging through the first 20 or 30 minutes.

In the end, if you go into "Evil Dead" expecting to laugh and wriggle around in your seat, you'll probably find the film to be enjoyable enough. If you're expecting to be scared, you'll likely walk out saying, "That was stupid." And, either way, you'll be right.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:23 AM | Permalink| |Digg It!

Derek Cianfrance's "Blue Valentine" was a great look at a doomed relationship. In "The Place Beyond The Pines", he bites off more than he can chew and we end up with what feels like a great short film followed by a related, underwhelming film about the consequences of the short. Bradley Cooper's storyline is pretty generic and his character is kind of all over the place. Once the final contrived act comes up, I really couldn't care less about him.

But perhaps the biggest problem with the film is that, for a film about consequences, it basically acts as if one act defines the future. Yes, there can be life altering events in people's lives but those events don't determine everything in the future. There will always be more choices with more consequences. There's a 15 year jump in the film and it's hard to understand how everyone got to where they now were because the events of the earlier scenes didn't necessarily lead to this situation.

All in all, I'd say it's a rental, especially because the film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. It's definitely worth checking out for the first part of the film but there are definitely diminishing returns as the film keeps going.

Two Random Thoughts:
A. Quite literally, Eva Mendes's areolas. I've seen nipples pop through a shirt but this is the first time I recall seeing a woman's areaolas push through. I definitely saw why she would have got Handsome Luke's eye.
B. I wasn't sure when the movie was initially set. Then there was a 15 years later leap forward so I thought, Oh, it was in the 80's. Then I realized 15 years ago was 1998 and I just felt old.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:41 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

GI Joe is a movie that is all third act. The GI Joe team suffers an apparent defeat to open the film (no spoiler, it's in the trailer) and after that, it's all onslaught, all the time. Now, this can be entertaining but it isn't here. Not only are most of the action scenes fairly pedestrian and just not shot/edited all that well, but the characters are thinner than even the one's in the after school cartoon. Cobra Commander does absolutely nothing in the film. Flint is introduced as a guy who breaks the rules... and then doesn't break any rules or show much of any personality at all after that. Ray Stevenson's character is a Southern accent.

Except for one incredibly stupid and pretty much pointless scene in the third act, most of the film isn't necessarily bad as much as it just isn't any good. In one scene, they have to get in to see the President and then grab something off of him. So what do they do? Lady Jay literally just walks in and grabs something off of him. There's an element of time pressure (which, on its face, is kind of silly but was no worse than what I expected going into the film) but there nothing clever about it, no game of cat and mouse, no playing along hoping that the task might get completed. The whole movie is like that. Everyone just kind of going through the paces of an action film but with no thought put into eliciting any actual emotion from the audience.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:39 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

Honestly, I don't know much about Wavves besides the fact that they're playing with FIDLAR on Wednesday night at The Echo. So let's give their new album a shot and see what I'm getting myself into.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:31 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

The best metaphor for this film is that Charlie is the film itself and critics/fans are Mia and her mother. He's dazzling yet vacant and people willfully overlook his obvious issues in hopes that there's some depth there and that he'll fulfill their own hope of something more. And even if you don't give yourself over completely to him but just his idea, you still come away being on the wrong side of Right. This review, in particular, seems a bit like Kidman's character - knowing that he's wrong and troubled but, to the end, holding out hope that Charlie could actually offer more than mere insanity in a dazzling package. Also like with Charlie, I think most people's lives will be better off never coming in contact with this film

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:49 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

Honestly, the first clip from this montage of green screen effects surprised me the most. No idea that they used green screen for exteriors of court houses like that. This is a very interesting look at just how vast the use of green screen is in today's TV and film. It also makes it more inexcusable for shows to have bad green screen. Ironically, the network named FX might have the worst; most conversations that take place in cars in that show look about as real as a car scene in 1950's TV.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:27 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!

After seeing "Stoker", I read the positive reviews and I am absolutely stunned by them. People claim the film is a puzzle or had twists but it all seemed pretty obvious from the first frame. Because the film came from Park Chan-wook, I think people gave it way more credit than it deserved. If you had delivered this very same movie and said it was from Zack Snyder, I believe that the very same critics would destroy it.

I will say that the film looks great and there's some captivating camera work but it is ridiculously bizarre from frame one so when things get more bizarre, it's not bizarre at all. There's no real revelation to the film, you just kind of get a more detailed explanation of what you came to think from the very beginning of the film.

There's really not much more to say. If you like Park Chan-wook's earlier films, maybe you'll like this, but I felt it was pretty undeniably awful.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:25 AM | Permalink| |Digg It!

Pardon the 30 second commercial at the beginning (God, I hate 30 second commercials for 2 minute videos) but NBC's "Hannibal" looks like it could be great. Basically, it's what "The Following" could of and should have been more like. At least, I hope. NBC doesn't have the greatest track record of late and the show could have its own problems but with Bryan Fuller (Heroes, Pushing Daisies) at the helm, I'm pretty confident that we'll, at least, get one borderline great season out of it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:05 PM | Permalink| |Digg It!