SoulHonky

I posted something about this film a while back but I never got a chance to see it. Now, the documentary about Tracy McGrady's trip to Darfur is available on Hulu so here it is. Injuries might have sapped T-Mac of his chance at greatness but I think that he could be the type of athlete whose true great deeds happen after his playing days are over.

If the video here comes up as "unavailable", click on the video and it should open up a new window (or just go to www.hulu.com). Once at Hulu, search "3 Points" and the page should come up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:39 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Mike Judge's "Extract" is pretty much the epitome of a solid movie. The laughs are more chuckles than laugh out loud funny. Many of the funny parts are in the ads/trailers but there are still some hidden gems. The actors do a steady job but none of the characters are all that memorable. Jason Bateman hits the right tone while Ben Affleck does well enough in a role that seemed like it was screaming for Owen Wilson. There are a few scenes that miss the mark but the film doesn't really ever have a long spell in which it is boring. All in all, it's one of those films that will probably be judged based on expectations. People expecting another "Office Space" will give it a disappointing "It's OK" while people who go in hoping for little will walk out with a happy "It's was good."

Normally, this is the kind of film that screams rental but given the rest of the crap in theaters right now, it might be your best option. Don't expect the next great comedy but for a fun enough time at the movies, I'd recommend "Extract".

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:22 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

"Sugar" is an interesting film that takes a look at the life of a baseball prospect from the Dominican Republic. The lead character, nicknamed Sugar, lands in America but can't speak English, the struggles of which are shown to be far more vast than one would immediately think. In fact, the film is more about an immigrant's journey in American than it is a pitcher's attempt to make the majors. This helps the film avoid the typical sports film cliches and really stand out as an original, fresh look at both baseball and life in general.

I think the one thing that really kept me from loving the film was that it was a little too reportorial; its style and the pace just seemed a bit meandering. On the other hand, in order to portray life as it is, let things unfold, and not have obvious rights and wrongs, this style might be a necessity. The film is basically paced like life - it wanders around slowly and then shift suddenly. There was one shift in particular that really left me scrambling. You simply can't go into this film thinking that it is about the journey to the majors; you have to see it as a character study of a young man.

I'd recommend the film but, again, I have to state that the pace is extremely slow. That being said, this is also one of the only films released this year that actually gets better the more you think about it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:08 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

News just broke that the Oscars Best Picture race, which has already been expanded to include 10 films, will change their voting rules. They are now using the system that they use for nominating films - putting your fave films in order and then having some equation tally up the points. The problem with this, of course, is that now people can basically vote AGAINST films. In the past, you voted for one film and the film with the most votes won. Now, you can love a film and vote for it but if there's a film that you don't care about, you can put it at ten and almost cancel out a first place vote. This all but spells doom for controversial films because mixed reviews will likely bring the film down while a movie that is a steady top 3 or 4 on the list could ultimately be called the winner.

The nomination process for the Oscars was always screwed up and moving that process to the winner just makes the award show all the more of a sham. I stopped caring about the Oscars a few years ago but this move just makes matters worse. Let's be honest, the Oscars have become more of a fashion show than an actual celebration of the best of that year in film. Especially this decade when foreign films, documentaries, and Pixar should have run away with the awards.

If they finally give Pixar credit, "Up" should get nominated and it might just be able to be near the top of enough lists (and avoid the botton of most) to win the trophy. I also wouldn't be surprised if a well-liked but not loved trifle like "Star Trek" got a boost because of this (if it can get nominated). A film like "Inglorious Basterds" which has a very divided reaction, probably just lost any hope of winning.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:14 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I'm not sure how this move will shake up the Marvel films series but Disney today bought the comic book giant for a whopping 4 billion dollars. Iron Man and Spider-man are currently being produced by other studios so I'm not sure if Disney will try to take those franchises over or if they will gladly sit back and let someone else do the dirty work on them. The move is a coup for both the Disney channel (which might now be able to start airing some superhero stuff that boys will like) and the parks, which can now have Marvel-based rides.

Marvel fans do have some concerns though. Will Disney be as focused on the comic book end of the company? Will the films look to become more family friendly and will many of the smaller characters be condemned to straight-to-DVD films? It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

On a stock level, the Marvel stock shot up 10 bucks today as Disney is offering 50 bucks per share (in cash and Disney stock).

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:41 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

James Toback's "Tyson" is little more that Mike Tyson in his own words. While that does limit the ability to really look at all sides of issues, it's nonetheless a fairly riveting film. It's always interesting to listen to Tyson speak and the stories he tells about the beginning of his life, from growing up to being mentored by Cus D'Amato are particularly interesting.

As can be expected though, the stories don't seem as poignant once you get to his downfall. Most of the time, he sounds like a guy who recognizes what he did wrong but doesn't seem able to change. He just doesn't seem to realize how his mindset keeps leading him astray. All of the hypocrisies that have brought him down still remain. For all of the times he says that he blames himself, you can see that that is as far as he's willing or able to go. He can blame himself for making mistakes but can't seem to change or really even understand how.

Tyson is one of the better films of the year but it leaves you with an almost unsatisfying feeling of wanting somthing more but knowing that you'll never get.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:08 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I really didn't like "Inglorious Basterds" and it's probably my own damn fault. I went in hoping that Tarantino would turn back the clock but instead he's just made another b-movie. (EDIT: The more I think about it, the less I blame myself. This was just a bad movie. I can see people appreciating it as a collection of scenes but it was a terrible movie.)

Even more disappointing was that the usual Tarantino strengths were wasted (except for his ability to get great performances from his actors; they carried the film). In other films, the verbosity of the characters was fun and gave you insight into who each person was. What they said was interesting and what it said about themselves was crucial. In "Basterds", it seemed like it was just there because it sounded cool. I guess you could credit Tarantino for creating an oxymoron, the self-indulgent homage, but I wouldn't make that leap.  

The film felt like two or three movies thrown together with the character development and depth cut out and only the violence (and set-up to violence) left in. You could cut out most scenes without changing the film and most of the film has little to do with the actual main plot.

To enjoy "Inglorious Basterds", you have to go in expecting nothing. It's a fantastical b-movie with neither heart nor soul, without point or purpose. Enjoy the performances, most of which are superb. Let the scenes wash over you; don't expect much to stick with you and don't worry too much about remembering anything because Tarantino doesn't leave anything to recollection - almost every time there's a moment that refers to an earlier scene, the audience is shown a snipped of said scene.

The best comparison I could make is imagine "Burn After Reading" except with the stories broken up into separate chapters and not nearly as connected and the film is stretched on for another 50 minutes. The biggest difference, though, is that the Coen Brothers often have tongue firmly in cheek while Tarantino's wagging his tongue, waiting excitedly for the next gory moment.

But what might have bothered me was that the film almost seemed to wink at its inappropriateness but then went right on with its faults, as if Tarantino was the biggest basterd of them all.

Continue Reading for the spoiler laden response.

Continue reading "Respond/React: Inglorious B-Movie" »

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

In a somewhat shocking move, Paramount Pictures has moved the latest Scorsece/DiCaprio film from October to February 2010. Getting pushed to the beginning of the year is usually a bad sign for a film since the first third of the calendar has been seen as a dumping ground for unwanted films. It also seems a bit odd since the film seems like a horror/thriller and you'd think releasing the film around Halloween would make more sense than premiering it around Valentine's Day. Then again, the most shocking thing might have been seeing Scorsece's name pop up as director of what seems to be a fairly standard and pulpy horror flick

According to Nikki Finke of Deadlinehollywooddaily.com, the decision was a financial one. “Paramount told the filmmakers it doesn’t have the financing in 2009 to spend the $50M to $60M necessary to market a big awards pic like this.” Looking at their upcoming schedule, it seems like they don't have the money to promote anything. They don't have another major film coming out this year. The only films they are involved with are smaller films from Paramount Vantage and "The Lovely Bones" with Dreamworks.

That being said, one man's loss could be another man's gain. Right now, the main Oscar contender for Paramount seems to be... "Star Trek". I don't think it should be even considered but with the Best Picture field expanding to ten nominations and Paramount not really having anything else besides "The Lovely Bones" to champion, the Trek reboot might be in line for some extra love from the studio. It would also be a wise investment since it would help promote the future films of the franchise. (On the other hand, if they don't have money for Marty, are they really going to spend it on JJ Abrams?)

Finally, I wouldn't be shocked if this move prompted a couple of other shifts. The weekend of October 2nd is now pretty bare, with the Toy Story 1 & 2 in 3D being the only films getting a wide release. It would probably be wise for "Couples Retreat" or "Whip It" to move back a week so that they could have the weekend to themselves or The Weinstein's could move "The Road" up a few weeks so it's not battling against two other thrillers and "Where the Wild Things Are". (UPDATE: It took just a couple of days for Drew Barrymore's "Whip It" and the latest zombie movie "Zombieland" to move up a week to October 2nd.

Should be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:12 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

When some readers of Entertainment Weekly open their magazines next month, they will discover characters from US television programmes speaking to them from a wafer-thin video screen built into the page.

Should be interesting to see how this works. This could very well be the way to save magazines, especially entertainment ones that could get the jump on trailer premieres and could also show their interviews with big stars. I'm honestly surprised that a porn mag wasn't the first to do this but you have to think that Playboy will be looking into it to help save itself.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:15 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Fired Up! was by no means a good movie. It was pretty much a complete rip-off of Wedding Crashers, the story was completely by the numbers, and the characters were almost too one dimensional to even be cliche. That being said, it was a funny flick.

What this film had going for it was some great chemistry between the two leads, Nicholas D'Agosto & Eric Christian Olsen and a pretty healthy pace that helped the film from ever really lagging. It did a decent job of avoiding the dreaded last third meltdown that many hurts a lot of films like this (and almost killed Wedding Crashers). I'm not sure if most of the lines were improvised but if they weren't, screenwriter Freedom Jones should be on the top of many studios speed dial when it comes to punching up comedic dialogue. In fact, the writers for Entourage should hire this guy immediately to help give some new life to Johnny Drama and Turtle's back-and-forth.

Those good feelings aside, let's not forget that this movie isn't all that good and if you don't like your humor to be the slightly wittier banter of the typical locker room then you should stay away from this. Very little humor comes from the actual situations, it's almost 100% goofy repartee. I think it's safe to say that if you don't get into the movie after the first 10 or 15 minutes, you can turn it off because it's just more of the same for the rest of the movie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:21 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I know I might lose some credibility with the X Chromosome Clan but I really liked "Julie and Julia", more than I did "District 9". Though the film isn't flawless and is very slight and basically a pure confection, I found it thoroughly enjoyable and a fun time at the theater. (Although I have to admit to being kinda in love with Amy Adams so I probably would have enjoyed watching her sitting and reading a cookbook to herself.)

Meryl Streep is amazing as Julia Child. The thing that sets her apart from all other actors alive is that she always disappears into her roles. She is arguably the greatest living actor because you rarely see her at all. She doesn't make a show of her own performance and that's what makes her so watchable. As much as I adore Adams, Streep is just on a different level.

All that being said, there's really no reason to see this film in the theater. It's a nice film but it's nothing that you have to rush out and see. If you want to see a fun movie, it might be the best thing out right now but, again, it's not the kind of film that you can't just wait for on video. Of course, there is the argument that people should support these films so more of them are made and so studios don't just churn out drivel like GI Joe. So if you want to strike a blow for warm-hearted, likable films, go see it. If you gave at the office, then just toss it on your Netflix queue.

There is one more thing, though. While I liked the film for the light diversion that it was, there was a big issue with the ending (spoilers ahead).

Continue reading "Respond/React: Bon Appetit!" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:15 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

For me, District Nine was like the anti-Watchmen. I loved Watchmen but fully understand why some people might absolutely despise it. Watching District 9, I could see how people would enjoy it but I just never got into it. Part of the problem was the pacing of the first half or two-thirds of the movie. To me, it really felt like a short film that had been stretched into a feature length flick. I also found the documentary style of the beginning of the film to be fairly distracting and I don't really think that it was utilized that effectively. Once the action starts, the film is a well made but fairly standard action movie. The protagonists/antagonists are flipped a bit so it doesn't feel tired but there were a couple moments that are obviously cliche.

The one distressing thing about the film, however, is the fact that it's a film about apartheid but the hero is white and the main Africans in the film are the evil, voodoo believing Nigerians.  While the film's heart might have been in the right place, its execution simply helped promote the worst stereotypes of the African people.

Anyway, I thought the movie was interesting enough and think that most people will like it a lot more than I did so I'd recommend checking it out. Or you can just watch the six minute short that was the jumping off point for the film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:15 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Armond White has become notorious as kind of the Skip Bayless of film criticism; he's a contrarian who finds pseudo-intellectual ways to defend trash and then turns around and trashes everything else. Recently, Roger Ebert tried to defend him but it took a day or so for his readers to point out how bad White really is. Ebert ended up labeling White a smart, insightful troll.

I never really paid attention to White's reviews but I read his take on GI Joe and it's one of the worst reviews I've ever read in my life. I can see defending GI Joe as mindless, escapist fun (although I'd disagree) but White tries to raise it up and act like it actually has something to say. Even worse, he's just plain wrong on a couple of things.

In a parenthetical aside, White writes, "Christopher Eccleston and Sienna Miller, whose British accents add to their villainy". Really? Because Eccleston's Destro had a Scottish accent and, while I can't really remember it, I'm not sure Miller even had much of an accent, nor should she have since I assumed that she was supposed to be an American. If not, I'm not sure how her boyfriend was the All-American Duke and her brother was also an American soldier. Even if she did have an accent, it wasn't nearly as strong as that of Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje's Heavy Duty, one of the key members of GI Joe. 

That's a simple mistake but the part that really made me laugh out loud was his take on the acting. Now maybe White was meaning to be sarcastic here but, if so, he didn't do a great job of it.

As for acting, operatives Tatum and Wayans look great in their special Accelerator suits, surging through the air, tumbling and weaving in dreamlike acrobatics to gladden the wide-eyed part of your aesthetic sensibility. Like race cars approaching Mach speed, they dodge missile plumes, then zoom toward the soon-to-be-legendary Eiffel Tower sequence. Maybe it’s revenge for Franco-snobbery after 9/11. Perhaps it’s also decadent exercise of CGI license (carrying an inherent warning about technological excess), but like the aircraft carrier and Great Pyramid sequences of Transformers 2: Wow.

So basically, "As for acting, the CGI was great." Again, maybe he was being sarcastic but it really comes off as if he's trying to argue that the film was saying something with its overabundance of CGI. I'm sure he'd use this same line of thinking to defend the fact that a surprising amount of the CGI was poorly done.

Armond White is practically indefensible. At first glance of the list of his likes and dislikes, I thought that perhaps he was more voice of the people shrouded in intellectual gobbledygook. Unfortunately, he shakes off the "Man of the People" crown by disliking every Pixar film, both Iron Man and Dark Knight, and The Hangover.

I think Armond White simply takes the contrarian view in order to be able to try to argue a certain belief. If a film is somehow related to a point of view he holds but doesn't really take a stand on, then he can say whatever he wants. He can yammer on about his personal opinion and will mistake that for liking a film. He reminds me of a friend who likes bad films because he gets to read into them and extract lessons and insights that aren't actually there. He sees films more as a creative thinking process. It's almost like he enjoys talking about films more than actually watching them. If a film is vapid, it gives room for any sort of interpretation. Any insight a film actually brings to the table just gets in the way and is discarded as "preachy".

And this is the worst part about Armond White. He doesn't seem to judge films on their own merits, rather his ratings are based on what he can add, what arguments he can conjure. Now, doing this every so often can be fun but when it's the very core of your film criticism, you become a "troll" to your peers and completely useless to your readers because they really can't trust your take on the films themselves.

In the end, Armond White should review individual films. He might be able to write an interesting criticism of a group of films or a movement in modern cinema but as for reviewing films on their own merits (nevermind guide people to films they should or shouldn't see), he's useless.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:43 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

The movies don't seem to be getting any better this year. At this rate, Drag Me to Hell and The Hangover could have great shots at one of the ten Oscar Best Picture nominations (and, although I haven't seen it, I find it hard to believe that they could keep Up out of the race).

I broke down and saw GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra and it was as bad as expected. They tried to accomplish way too much with way too many characters in way too little time seeing as there was only probably 30 minutes of character driven scenes in between all of the action set pieces. The action scenes weren't even all that impressive. It's one of those films that makes you respect what Michael Bay brings to the table in terms of directing action. The film marked the first time in a decade or so that I actually walked out of a movie to go to the bathroom. (And no, it's not because I usually pee where I'm sitting).

Now I'm sure some people will argue that 9 year olds will like it but really all that means is that it wasn't slow paced and had a lot of explosions. There were no characters to really get into. Bumblebee was more relatable than anyone in this film. The whole 1 degree of separation storyline was also lame and one key unveiling was the epitome of lame. In the end, it's a film you can miss altogether.

As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's other summer movie, 500 Days of Summer is an infinitely better film but it really wasn't all that great. It's a solid rom-com but the timeline gimmick gets old and the film feels a lot longer than its 90 minutes. I think one of the keys to a story that jumps back and forth in time is whether or not it's all that good if you recut it and let it play out linearly.  In this case, it really isn't. Most of the jokes stem from smash cuts. The narration added a lot and there's one stellar scene involving split-screen but other than that, it just wasn't that great. Granted, in this year, that still nets you a top 5 spot (so far, given the few movies I've seen).

I'd recommend the film but would also recommend that you go in with lowered expecations. I'd say it's on par with a film like "Mumford" (which Zooey Deschanel was also in) but I think I actually liked Mumford more. It's a film that I can't see many people not liking but it's also one that I could see most people forgetting about quickly. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:59 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Flickchart is a new site that helps you rank your movies through head-to-head comparisons. The site picks two films at random and asks you which you liked better. After a while (and it's easy to be on the site for a long time), your top 20 starts to shape up. It also brings up some interesting questions like: Ghostbusters or Back To the Future, Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, The Shadow or The Happening, etc.

The site is still beta-testing but you can join by using LifeHacker's link. 

I'm not completely happy with my Top 20 but right now (after a ridiculous 4651 rankings battles between 1378 films, it reads:

Continue reading " Got Time and an Opinion?" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:24 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I had a rough go of it this summer. My summer box office predictions were all over the map and I was way off on most of my guesses. I was close on Star Trek (11 million off) but I completely whiffed on "The Hangover" and also didn't give Sandra Bullock enough credit for "The Proposal".

As it stands, the Summer Box Office Top Ten is: 

1    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen: $380,342,669
2    Up :   $283,945,084
3    Star Trek: $254,089,632
4    The Hangover: $247,929,964
5    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: $225,318,990 
6    X-Men Origins: Wolverine: $179,485,955
7    Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian: $173,108,283
8    Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs: $172,649,364
9    The Proposal: $140,919,419
10    Angels & Demons: $133,015,117

My picks? 

Continue reading " UPDATE: Summer Box Office Contest" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:24 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

"The Ugly Truth" could have been a good movie. Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler are very talented actors, both with nice comic flair, and had good chemistry. Unfortunately, the movie was shoddily made and the script definitely needed at least one more pass to beef up the jokes.

Perhaps the most distracting part of the movie was the music. Most of it sounded like generic library music that you'd hear in a reality TV show and it was almost always too loud. All of the music was too loud, especially in the case of one dialogue heavy scene which had a song in the background with lyrics that were competing with the dialgoue. The sound editing also seemed sloppy. In the very first scene there was an obvious cut moment in which, in response to people arguing at her desk, Heigl's character blows a whistle to shut everyone up. You'd think they'd cut the music there was well but instead they let it fade out, somewhat deadening the moment.

The sound editing wasn't the only thing that was off. The pacing of the film wasn't sharp, some scenes just kind of ended, and the final fade to black seemed slapped on. 

In the end, most of the film had the feel of a rough cut of dress rehearsals.

All of that being said, the film still has some very funny moment and Heigl, Butler, and Bree Turner do some nice work, although Turner should not have been cast in this. She's a very pretty girl playing a desperate woman and it just doesn't work. Unbeknownst to me, I saw it at the same time as the friends and family of the object of Heigl's affections, Eric Winter (or maybe just his fan club). When his name came up, half of the audience hooted and hollered. I thought he did a solid job but he really wasn't given much to do.

So I can't recommend "The Ugly Truth". It's probably best to wait for when it hits cable (or throw it on the ol' Netflix queue for a rainy week of unemployment or something).

Continue reading "Respond/React: Ugly Indeed" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:27 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I have to start off by saying that I, like most everyone in the world, have not seen Quentin Tarantino's soon-to-be released "Inglorious Basterds". Maybe it will somehow shake the slasher-action genre and come out as a strong political statement but I highly doubt that. It would be nice to think that Tarantino could expand his universe to actually recognizing the existence of, if not his influence on, the real world but none of the early reviews have made it seem as if the film is anything more than a shoot 'em up (or baseball bat 'em up as the case may be).

So that leads to the obvious question: why would anyone think that, in this particular time, that a movie about Americans slaughtering their enemies is a good idea. Even if those enemies are Nazis, it still seems to be sending the wrong message and affirming the worst stereotypes of our soldiers. Or is QT just playing it up for the Red States? He's watched filmmakers of his generation try time and again to make message movies about the war and almost always fail. Instead, Tarantino has gone the other route and seems to be giving the extreme members of The Fox Nation just what they want: America exacting revenge, one bashed skull at a time.

Part of me wants to think this is true and that Quentin is a neo-con because then I could at least respect him for sticking to his beliefs, both artistically and politically. But if he does think of himself as even a a semi-moderate conservative, I have no idea how he could believe that this is the film he should be making. It's disappointing that one of the iconic directors of his generation could be so enamored and obsessed with particular film genres and gore that he embraces it, in spite of the impact it could have or the statement that it sends out. Tarantino will never be Hal Ashby but even Roger Corman's films usually had some sort of positive message buried deep within the shlock.

Normally I'm not a political person and I don't think that filmmakers should have to make message movies. And, admittedly, part of me thinks "Oh get over it, it's just a movie." Still, when someone comes out with a movie that is so out of tune with what the country needs or, rather, is in tune with a growing sentiment that could help pull the nation apart, I simply can't blow it off with, "Eh, but it's just supposed to be a pulpy, b-movie actioner."

In the end, I have to repeat that I haven't seen the movie and hopefully Tarantino will prove me wrong but right now I have a feeling that the last thing the world needs to see coming out of America is "inglorious Basterds".

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:18 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I'm not sure if I would call "Better Off Ted" a laugh out loud funny TV show but it is one of the most clever shows I've seen in a very long time. There are some great one liners and funny wordplay but all too often there are some bland jokes that you see coming from a mile away (like the opening scene in this episode). But the cast is great and Andrea Anders is the most plainly sexy actress since Dollhouse's Miracle Laurie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:37 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

This trailer for the latest Nick Hornby adaptation looks pretty good. Even more intriguing is that he is adapting his own novel, making this his first screenplay since 1997's "Fever Pitch" (the British version, not the Drew Barrymore/Jimmy Fallon one). It also features the up-and-coming Carey Mulligan and the forever up-and-going-nowhere Peter Sarsgaard. I'm a huge fan of Sarsgaard's but arguably the best thing he's done of late is a short film called High Falls. He seems to do better when he sticks to low key productions so this could be a return to form.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:59 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I just noticed the Milwaukee Bucks roster and good lord, they are terrible. What's even worse is that they have 41 million in salary tied up for 2010-11 and that's just: Michael Redd, Andrew Bogut, Charlie Bell, Dan Gadzuric, Joe Alexander, and Luc Mbah a Moute. If they do re-sign Ramon Sessions (as well as adding rookie Brandon Jennings), they'll be close to the 2010 salary cap limit.

Making matters worse, their best player is Redd who is coming off of injury so he doesn't have a ton of trade value. Also, I don't see many teams wanting to waste 18 million in 2010 cap space on him. I was thinking that they could deal Redd for Andrei Kirilenko but then who scores for them? If Redd is healthy by mid-season, maybe they could find someone to take him for an expiring contract but I'm really not sure what they can do.

Right now, they're going to have to make a major move or I don't see any way that they won't be the worst team in the NBA by a great deal.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:11 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I thought this was going to turn into a horror film midway through... and it kind of does. This trailer also features the most awkward dialogue from little kids I've ever seen in my life

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:42 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

For a while "Terminator: Salvation" was the worst movie I'd seen this year but because some of the January/February releases are now coming out on DVD, I have a feeling that the bottom of my list could be getting crowded. Take for example, "Push".

The film stars Dakota Fanning and Chris Evans as people with superpowers who are trying to get something that they think will do something to save people like them from being hunted down by "The Division", a government agency that kidnaps superpeople and experiments on them. Although it's a bit odd that "The Division" seems to be made up completely of people with superpowers. So basically, people with superpowers are being hunted by other people with superpowers because they hold the key to finding another person with super-superpowers (Camilla Belle) who could help bring down the aforementioned people with superpowers (the hunters, not the huntees).

Imagine reading the above paragraph for two hours and you'll basically have an idea of what watching "Push" feels like. It's one of those films that, once you make sense of it, doesn't really make sense.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:00 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

District 9 is one of those movies that I'm very interested in seeing, even though I know that there's a 50% chance that it could be terrible (aka the next Cloverfield). The latest trailer makes it seem more like an action film than I was expecting, with all sorts of crazy robots/alien things. I'm still there opening weekend but I still have no idea whether or not it'll be any good. Bad reviews could dissuade me from seeing it, as they did with Wolverine, but right now, it's one of the few films left this summer that I have any measurable interest in.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:27 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

More importantly, Rasheed Wallace is coming to Boston. If you thought the Celtics talked a lot of trash last year, get ready for 'Sheed and KG yapping away all game. What does that have to do with the new trailer for "Jennifer's Body", the latest film from Diablo Cody? I don't know. I just didn't feel like making a separate post for the 'Sheed signing.

Anyway, the trailer for the film looks cool (it was directed by Karyn Kusama) but it seems like the haters of Juno will have more than their opportunities to bash Cody and her quips. I can't say that the trailer made me any more interested in seeing the film but it looks like it should be good for what it is.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:48 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Fans of Michael Mann's films will like this but anyone who found Miami Vice to be slow and boring or viewers who expect some character development or any real depth or insight will be bored. "Public Enemies" is two and a half hours yet you learn nothing about any of the characters. In fact, the most interesting stuff is between Billy Crudup's J. Edgar Hoover and Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis but that lasts a handful of minutes. The film left me with a similar feeling as "The Assassination of Jesse James..."; when the lights came up I thought, "That's an interesting story. Someone should make a movie out of it."

Katey Rich's review at Cinemablend says it best.

There are a million interesting things about 1930s gangster folk hero John Dillinger, from his expert manipulation of the press to his trick of robbing banks and letting the customers keep their money. But somehow Michael Mann, who has made an entire movie about Dillinger, Public Enemies, seems interested in none of it. Letting the story plod by almost glumly, in the script he co-wrote with Ronan Bennett, Mann saves all his directorial zeal for the visual style, using high-def digital cinematography to lend the feel an urgent, crisply modern feel. The result is a film that sings in the visually dynamic sequences-- the shoot-outs, the bank robberies, any scene with Marion Cotillard-- but feels excruciatingly slow as soon as someone opens their mouth. Public Enemies is a series of theses, not a story, and nothing in Mann's bag of tricks makes it cohere.

For more reaction (with spoilers), read on.

Continue reading " Respond/React: Public Enemies" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:59 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

When word broke of a "Monopoly" movie on the horizon, I thought it was odd but then I learned that Hasbro was helping pay for the film and Hollywood will always take the money and make a movie no matter how ridiculous it might seem. But yesterday's news was that a god's honest bidding war broke out over "Asteroids". Does Hollywood really think that the name recognition of the old Atari game is worth something? Would a movie called "Meteors" really do any worse?

It's kind of stunning that Hollywood keeps throwing money at name brands that don't really affect the box office, be it titles like "Land of the Lost" or stars like Nicole Kidman. Also, how many video game movies have to fail before they realize that they aren't a sure thing and probably aren't worth the investment. Especially a game that came out almost three decades ago and is basically the same premise as "Armageddon" or "Deep Impact". Maybe this film is the Aliens to Armageddon's Alien and will have a lot of asteroids that need to be shot down rather than just one big one but, again, does the name "Asteroids" really add to anything besides the ability to mock it?

On the other hand, is the problem the purchasing of these titles or just that they are buying the wrong ones? I still think an animated action film based on Frogger could be amazing and Cloverfield could have been a much better movie had it been based on Rampage.

In the end, I'd have to go back to my usual stance: 9 times out of 10, it makes more sense just to rip something off than remake it. Most times the brand name doesn't help. Would "The Fast and The Furious" have done better as "Point Break on Wheels"? Just make a film that's like Asterioids and spend the money on FX to make a cool trailer rather than wasting it on the brand name.

If i get bored this weekend, maybe I'll start work on a b-movie script about a giant Werewolf, Ape, and Gila Monster that decide to tear apart NYC. I'll call it "Frenzy" or "Monster Ruckus!"

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:23 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I noticed this on Cinemablend.com and decided to post it since I still have family in town and don't have anything more interesting to post.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:24 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

To start, I wish I could say that "The Hurt Locker" was a great film but it isn't. It's a decent thriller. Some people seem to think that it is an intense film but I just never got into it. It felt more like four or five loosely tied together set pieces than one cohesive movie. I also thought some of the directorial choices hurt the film and hurt some of the tense moments. (For an example, click Continue Reading below) The acting was solid but overall it's an interesting yet forgettable film.

The film did get me thinking about Iraq War films and how they never really seem to be all that great. The best modern war movie that's actually about war would probably be "Jarhead", which is hardly a universally loved (or even liked) movie. "Generation Kill" might be the best produced piece on the war but not many people saw it and it's also not all that memorable. (That being said, I still recommend it to anyone who hasn't seen it. Throw it on your Netflix queue ASAP).

The fact of the matter is: if there is going to be a great Iraq war movie, it probably won't focus on the American military. There's really not a great story to tell. WWII had the Nazis. Vietnam had the draft. iraq doesn't really have an angle when it comes to creating a riveting fiction piece.

I think the best war movie might be a "Thin Red Line" type meditation that went into the psyches of: a Marine, a member of Blackwater, and an insurgent from Saudi Arabia. The insurgents andBlackwater soldiers who see war as their job have far more interesting angles to them IMO. (The founder of Blackwater said he wants his company to be to the US Armed Forces what UPS is to the US Postal Service.) Even the Iraqi forces have a more interesting predicament: do they defend their religion by standing with their corrupt country or do they surrender.

The film could compare the core beliefs of the Marine and the insurgent and how some of what makes the US the Great Satan is what conservatives decry here in the US. The film could examine the Saudi man torn between progress and the corrupting powers of freedom.  He could see how Western influence is pulling people away from Allah. This wouldn't be too far off from what some of the staunch members of the Religious Right feel.

And then there's the Blackwater soldier. I think it's surprising that we haven't seen a movie about them yet. If the Middle East is the new Wild West then Blackwater is the new Pinkertons. In fact, the handful of Marines that I've spoken to about Blackwater have all used the same word to describe them: cowboys. And they meant that in both a positive and negative light.

It's on the nose but I could see a scene with the Marine praying to Jesus, the Saudi insurgent to Allah, and the Blackwater operative saying, "They don't pay me enough for this shit." 

Just as I thought that Dan White's story was more interesting than that of Harvey Milk's, the Iraqi conundrum is far more interesting than a bunch of US grunts just following orders. "Traitor" was flawed (but also decent and on par with "The Hurt Locker" but I think that it came closer to what I was looking for than any other film. It's a tough film to write since respecting the insurgents while not glorifying them is a fine line to walk (and one that has gotten some people, like Bill Maher, fired in the past) and not a project that most studios or investors would be interested in funding.

Continue reading " Respond/React: The First Great Iraq War Movie" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:16 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

This trailer for "Daybreakers" is pretty interesting. A new take on the genre with the humans being in the minority and the vampires needing to find them since they are running out of blood. Kind of like "What if Blade lost..." Who knows if it'll live up to this trailer but it's definitely on the radar now.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:02 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

This film is based on a Twilight Zone episode but they definitely have expanded the scope of the story. The original episode, or what I remember about it, took place in a single room. It was more of a psychological drama with no detective work or lines about killing wives.

The additional stuff makes me nervous because Richard Kelly is probably films foremost pseudo-intellectual. His films seem like they have something going on but they are really just silly. Listening to the director's commentary of Donnie Darko really made me lose a lot of respect for the film. And then there was Southland Tales, a car crash of a movie. It's somehow watchable even though it's all over the place.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:46 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I'm not really sure if this film has much in the way of characters or an honest human story but then again I'm not sure it's going to need one.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:19 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

This trailer should come with a spoiler warning. Pretty much all that's left to see is which people make it out alive in the last ten minutes of the film (and I'd assume it's all of the good guys). I'm not sure the last time I saw a trailer that gave away this much of the movie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:18 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

The stuff with The Edge showing the difference between what the effects and foot pedals sound like and what he's actually playing is the best part of the trailer. I hope there's more of that but then I'd have to assume that the real guitar afficionados already know stuff like that. Still, this could be an interesting little film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:48 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

In honor of Gay Pride Weekend, I suggest that everyone watch "Drag Me to Hell" with a stereotypically catty gay couple who don't know what kind of movie they should be expecting. While I liked Sam Raimi's latest, I can't help but credit a bit of the fun of the film to the two guys in my row who kept remarking, "Oh, this is terrible" or "Oh no!" or "Look, he's just sitting there like 'Hey, I'm Bruno.'" (All actual quotes) At the end of the film, most of the audience applauded which elicited an almost offended, "Why are you clapping?!"

The reason the people were clapping is because the film was a blast. It's schlocky and silly with some cheap shocks/scares but it was a lot of fun. It has possibly the second best scene of the year (next to Taken's "It's a flesh wound!") which features the best use of a certain cute kitty poster. The film isn't perfect and there were a few moments that dragged and the standard, "Wait, why didn't they..." but the shlock moments and dead-pan delivery of Dileep Rao are priceless. Well, maybe not priceless but they are, at the very least, worth the 14.50 ticket price at Arciight. 

On a related note, Alison Loman turns 30 this year and I swear that she could still play 13.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:36 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

The trailer for Martin Scorsese's latest, "Shutter Island", doesn't do much for me but the premise along is intriguing. Scorsese, a ridiculous cast, based on a novel by Dennis Lehane (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone)? That seems like an awful lot of talent for it to turn out bad. But right now, it just seems like a fairly standard horror film. We shall see.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:39 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I haven't been seeing a lot of movies this year and I'm just pretty grouchy every time I walk out and don't feel like spending too much time responding/reacting to them so the reviews haven't been that great. But there have to be other voices on the web that I can share so I thought I would start looking for other reviews to link to.

So behold "Blood Has Been Shed, Jerry" and the review for "The Girlfriend Experience". The views expressed on that blog are not held by SoulHonky.com and there's really no connection at all with SoulHonky.com besides the fact that Blood Has Been Shed, Jerry is written by a friend of a friend. But the reviews are thoughtful, well-written, and... well, isn't thoughtful and well-written enough?

"So I was all prepared to dismiss The Girlfriend Experience as another one of Soderbergh's little formalist experimentations and Grey as an interesting but not all that promising mainstream actress. But then -- just as I was checking out -- they sank the hooks in. I have to give them credit. They were one step ahead of me the whole time..."

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:53 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Thank goodness nobody took me up on my Summer Box Office challenge. I've been pretty far off on most of my picks. Let's take a look at the films that have already come out.

10. Wolverine: 205 million: Wolverine has made 173 million and I can't imagine it is still playing in many theaters so I probably will end up being off by 30 million. This has to be a disappointing take for the film but that, of course, won't stop Marvel.

9. Angels and Demons: 207 million: I really wanted to lowball this one but I decided to go with Tom Hanks and the Christian imagery to make over 200 million. The movie has made 116 million and only around 6.5 million this weekend so 200 million isn't happening. 150 million probably won't even happen. No way this film finishes in the Top 10.

7. Night at the Museum 2 - 218 million

It added 15 million this weekend to bump up to 137 million but 200 million is looking like it might be out of reach. On the bright side, Land of the Lost tanked so that won't offer up much competition but it's still looking like I overshot this prediction.

6. Up - 220 million

It's only taken two weekends for Up to make 117 million and they made a strong 44 million in the second weekend (dropping on 38%) so there still might be hope for this being the second 200 million dollar film of the Summer of '09. I'm not sure about 220 but this film looks to be a lock for the Top 10. Don't bet against Pixar.

5. Terminator: Salvation - 245 million

The trailer fooled me. I'll admit it. Apparently I was the only one who fell for it as it has taken three weeks for the film to just cross 100 million. 

4. Star Trek - 265 million

Star Trek is at around 225 million so this is probably my best guess. It has more staying power than Wolverine so it'll probably get closer to my predicted box office than 30 million.

Still, in terms of a Top 10, I'm looking OK. The only movie that I might have missed on so far is "The Hangover" opened at 40+ million and has a decent chance to crack the Top 10. It made about the same amount as Terminator: Salvvation did on opening weekend and it has a lot better word of mouth. As it should since it is one of the better movies this year whereas Terminator was one of the worst. Well, worst of the ones I saw.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:33 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

While I wouldn't say that it is one of the funniest films of the decade, "The Hangover" is still a very funny flick and a film I'd definitely recommend. It has a few slow parts but it never really drags. The directing/pacing is good enough but the film really relies on its actors for all of the laughs. Even still, it's definitely a step in the right direction for Todd Phillips, who followed "Old School" with "Starsky & Hutch" and "School for Scoundrels".

Bradley Cooper seems like he might be ready for his shot at the A-list but he still seems to be getting supporting roles and sites like Deadline Hollywood Daily still seem to ignore his growing success. Then again, maybe they are right because while Cooper's films are making more money, I'm not sure how many people are drawn to him. He doesn't have the indie background that helped Owen Wilson rise to fame nor does he have the charisma that is helping Ryan Reynolds forge forward with leading man roles. While I like Cooper, I think he's lacking "it" and I also am not sure with him as a choice for Templeton "Face" Peck in The A-Team movie.

Still, "The Hangover" is a fun movie and an enjoyable filmgoing experience. Check it out.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:57 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Martin Scorsese has always been one of leaders in restoring old films and he's now taken his love to the internet. He's teaming up with a site called The Auteurs and is offering classic films for just five dollars. The films will also be available in Criterion Collection DVD's. While I am not blown away by the prospect of watching an old restored foreign film on my computer (I've yet to really embrace the TV on Computer movement), the state of film preservation is a bit depressing. The Reuters article pointed out, "Scorsese said almost 90 percent of U.S. silent movies are gone, and originals of classic titles such as Orson Welles' "The Magnificent Ambersons" (1942) no longer exist." Scorsese adds, ""The more audiences see these films, the more they want to see other films like them, and then what happens is the audience changes which means the movies that are being made change. There is an audience for special movies, and good movies, for a different way of looking at the world -- and not just blockbusters."

While I agree with that sentiment, it does also bother me because I still believe that blockbuster films can be saved from the pure braindead lights on a big screen with loud noises and special FX current state that they've devolved into. I feel like most people have just given up on the action or suspense film. 

If anything, fans of classic films have their art house flicks and a rabid fan base that eats them up and defends them. But there's nobody really pushing for improved blockbuster films. Hopefully this summer might be able to shake Hollywood from their slumber. The costs of these films are skyrocketing and in some cases, like Terminator Salvation or Wolverine, they are requiring huge ad campaigns to help them barely break even at the domestic box office. The Studio tricks can get people to come to an opening weekend but it takes a quality film to have a strong second weekend.

Unfortunately, that lesson will probably be lost and execs will focus on family films which seem to be the safest bet. Of course, that will just mean that everyone starts releasing films for the whole fam, the market will get saturated, and then they'll face the same issue as actioners do now.

I applaud Scorsese for his work as a film historian but I also wish he'd also remind the studios about the quality mainstream films out there, from Key Largo to The Great Escape to The Silence of the Lambs. The irony of Termator Salvation was that it was about humans fighting machines but the film itself relied almost entirely on machines and had little humanity to it. And, unfortunately, that's becoming more and more the norm. Let's try to restore that in our films and work to make our present films as inspirations as these classics.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:13 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

If there's one A-list movie star who is completely unpredictable, it's Bruce Willis. He pops up in some completely random films and you never know if they are going to be great or dismal. "Perfect Stranger" with Halle Berry came out of nowhere and stunk while "16 Blocks" was entertainingly mediocre and "12 Monkeys" is a cult classic.

One thing is almost for certain though; it the movie doesn't have "Die Hard" in the name, it probably won't make any money. Looking at Willis's page on Box Office Mojo , it's surprising to see how many low box office returns he's had. Yes, he often takes some off-beat roles but even his more mainstream attempts like "Hostage" come up empty. On the other hand, he does seem to have a foreign box office draw which probably help keep him on the A-list. If you have Bruce Willis, you can sell overseas and that's often all it takes to get a script greenlit.

So what of his new movie "Surrogates"? The trailer makes it look like a low rent version of I, Robot or The 6th Day or Bladerunner and it's directed by the man who brought us T3 and U571 so my hopes aren't that high but it does look like it could be a hidden gem. It's written by the guys who wrote Terminator: Salvation, which would be a bad thing but I think that original script (which focused on the Marcus character rather than John Connor) might have been better than the silly film McG pumped out.

And if anyone was going to make Bruce Willis look like a sure thing, it's writers John Brancato and Michael Ferris. I'm not sure if people keep changing their scripts or what but anyone who can go from "The Net" (not good) to "The Game" (one of my faves) definitely piques my interest. It's also kind of odd that the much worse movie has become a TV pilot and spawned a sequel (The Net 2.0). Lately, they seem to just get story credits on lackluster films: Catwoman and T3.

It should be interesting to see how this movie turns out. The trailer makes it seem interesting enough but not so interesting that I'll actually go to see it in theaters.

What do you think?

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:32 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Terminator Salvation is just plain bad. Some of the FX are cool and the cinematography is good but the movie doesn't make one iota of sense, the dialogue is terrible, the action scenes are laughable at times, and the whole thing takes itself WAY too seriously. There were some moments from the old movies but it wasn't an homage or a nod, it was an awkward and obvious "Hey remember this!".

I'd say the movie had plot holes but I'm not sure it really had a plot. The ending drags and just gets more and more ridiculous as it goes on. There's a key moment in the climax that reminded me of a joke from Pineapple Express. It's awful. I really don't know what else to say. It's not even paced well enough to be so bad it's funny.

This is just a bad movie. Unless you think things blowing up is cool or get off by watching people fire shotguns at robots, I recommend that you save yourself the time and money.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:07 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Nothing shows just how bad films have gotten like Cinematical's feature "Our Favorite Summers". They go through some of the best summers of the recent past and it's stunning to see how many classic films came out during one year. Today, we'll be lucky to have one classic and two or three very good films come out in a summer. In 1984, Gremlins and Ghostbusters came out on the same weekend!

Their latest summer is 1980, a year that saw a celluloid heatwave of: Friday the 13th, Fame, The Empire Strikes Back and The Shining (on the same weekend), The Blues Brothers, Airplane!, Dressed to Kill, and Caddyshack. I almost feel bad for the kids nowadays. Most films today struggle to even meet the level of '84's "My Bodyguard".

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:02 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

The trailer for Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" has arrived and I have to say that it iooks pretty much like I expected although there was a little more action. The bare-knuckle boxing element reminded me (and I'm assuming everyone) of "Snatch". It was nice to see Mark Strong (Rock'n'Rolla, Body of Lies) getting a billing. Perhaps he could save himself from being the "That Guy" of the 2010's.

I usually like Guy Ritchie films so the fact that he is being who he is is a good thing to me. His two attempts to break from the mold (Swept Away, Revolver) were horrific. Well, I should only call Revolver horrific since I didn't see the Madonna movie but I haven't heard anything good about it. Jude Law gets a lot of crap (which he kind of deserves for picking so many bad movies) but he and Downey Jr. could be an amazing pairing. Two talented actors with great comic timing.

The trailer didn't get me any more interested in this film than I already was but, on the bright side, it didn't have a GI Joe/Wolverine effect and make me less likely to see the film in theaters.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:25 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I was a big fan of Rian Johnson's "Brick" and I loved the first few minutes that was posted online (and embedded on SoulHonky not so long ago) so Brothers Bloom was one of my most highly anticipated films of the year. And while the film was fun and clever, I definitely can see where people had a problem with it.

Overall, I enjoyed the movie but it's probably only a solid B. It's like Wes Anderson-lite meets David Mamet for kids. That sounds a lot worse than it's supposed to but I think it fits. The movie is clever, has some great dialogue, and some very funny moments. The star of the movie was Rinko Kikuchi (from Babel) who pretty much steals the film. Rachel Wiesz is great and this film really solidifies my belief that she is basically what everyone expected Winona Ryder to be before she flamed out.

If you feel like going to a movie, I don't think you can go wrong by opting for the Brothers Bloom but it really isn't the type of film that you need to seek out. It's a recommended rental.

For a more spoiler heavy reaction, keep reading

Continue reading "Respond/React: The Brothers Bloom" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:06 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:05 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

While "Watchmen" was a movie that I really liked but wouldn't recommend to others; "Star Trek" is a film that I didn't really care for but wouldn't tell people to avoid. It seems a lot of people like the film but I thought it was lacking in pretty much every department and also had more holes in it than I could overlook. Even worse, there was nothing in it that I really latched on to. I can't say that the issues with the film took me out of it because I was never invested. There just isn't enough going on to make you overlook the flaws; a fact that becomes all the more obvious when you put a second's thought into what happened.

"Star Trek" is a witty, well-made brain dead action film without much action. The conflicts are all fairly childish and the plot is basically "Let's get everyone together... Oh, and there's a guy that nobody really knows about blowing up planets." The key to resolving almost any conflict is convenience. Nothing happens logically; things happen because they are needed to serve the end goal of getting everyone in their place.

The film also doesn't seem to know what it wants to be. Karl Urban's Dr. McCoy borders on parody while other moments make it seem like it wants to be an action film. In the end, it feels like a very well made 'tween movie. 

I was going to add a longer response to the film but, in the end, people who like it will just say "Oh, those things shouldn't have bothered you". But the convenience, cliches, and insane amount of lens flare were just too much for me to take. And with nothing else to keep my mind from focusing on these things, the film fell flat for me.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:23 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

/Film posted up Charlie Rose's interview with the Star Trek director. Personally, I'm just not sold on JJ Abrams or his partners Orci & Kurtzman. While the first season of "Lost" was amazing, I hated where they went with it and was gone by the third season. "Fringe" is to "X-Files" what "Castle" is to "Murder, She Wrote" - watchable but very very missable. "Fringe" also has a lot of nonsense in it and is already repeating storylines in its very first season. I've tried to commit to it twice now but it just doesn't have it. I was not a fan of Mission: Impossible III and never really got into any of is other stuff (and I'm going to let him off of the hook for "Cloverfield" since he just produced it).

I'm definitely going to see Star Trek but the reviews do note that the film's plot is problematic which scares me. Maybe the FX and characters are strong enough to gloss it over but Abrams' films and shows almost always use plot as a tease more than a foundation and there is often holes in it that really bother me. Nothing is worse than "Fringe" in which crazy shit is happening in Boston all the time and many times Anna Torv's main character is a target yet she still gladly lets her sister and niece move in like nothing's wrong. I also could never get over the fact that the biggest heist in MI3 was basically glossed over. We spend 10 minutes listening to how difficult it's going to be to break in and then it basically cuts to Tom Cruise escaping.

Then again, I've never been a huge fan of Star Trek so it should be too hard for this film to top the past flicks.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:01 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I've been a fan of Amy Adams for a while but this film might be the one that makes me fall completely in love with her. It's good to see her playing a normal person; I was afraid that she was always playing "characters" and never really seemed completely grounded in the real world. While her character Julie does have her moments, she seems like the most "normal" modern person that Adams has played since perhaps Ricky Bobby's assistant in "Talladega Nights".

As for Meryl Streep, her take on Julia Childs seems amazing and kudos to the cinematographer for making her seem like the gigantic Childs (Streep is 5'6). Other actors should look to Streep for direction in how to move into comedy without selling one's soul.

This film definitely moves into my top ten most anticipated films (it comes out August 7th).

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Only three more days to send in your predictions for the top ten grossing summer blockbusters (and how much they are going to pull in). A whopping zero people have signed up so far so I'm thinking the original prize is DOA but the winner will still get something. A sur-prize! Maybe even a SoulHonky t-shirt.

Send your picks to admin@soulhonky.com and best the Soulhonky! Or you can even beat "Pirates of the Caribbean" scribe Terry Rossio's picks. He didn't enter the SoulHonky contest but posted his picks at his Wordplayer site. Will Wolverine best his prediction of 178 million?

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:08 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Here's a Q&A with screenwriter John August (Go, Big Fish, The Nines). It's almost two hours long but August is an interesting writer and his blog is one of the better ones out there for screenwriters so it might be worth a listen.

August also has "scriptcasts" on his site. It's an interesting approach to advice; August basically speaks and shows his method by rewriting an existing scene.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Each year on the Wordplayer message board, people throw down their predictions for the Summer Box Office. Last year, I woefully underestimated the power of Iron Man and this year I feel like I'm once again guessing low on the receipts of the first May release (Wolverine). In fact, I might be below the mark on most of my guesses. But I'm sticking with this instant analysis.

To spice things up (and to see if anyone is really out there) I'm going to make my own contest for the Summer Box Office with the prize being gift certificate to Amazon or your online DVD retailer of choice. The amount of the DVD will be .0000005 percent of the domestic gross of the biggest grossing movie of the Summer. And just in case my math is wrong, I'm saying that last year, "The Dark Knight" made 533 million and the gift certificate would have been for $266.50. Spiderman 3 would have given the winner $168. (And just in case something incredible happens, I'm capping the gift certificate at $500 bucks but I really don't think any film is going to make a billion dollars this summer).

At this point, I'd like to remind readers to click on the web ads on this page. Not that that would pay for the prize (I've made less than 10 bucks so far. Total) but it might be nice to make a little scratch to put towards this.

E-mail your Top Ten picks and how much you think they will gross to admin@soulhonky.com and I'll send an e-mail back to confirm your picks. The confirmation e-mail might not come until that evening (I gotta job, y'know).  The eligible films have to be released from Ma 1st to the last day in August. The deadline is midnight on April 30th. I'll try to set up a little offshoot web page for the contest. 

I haven't quite come up with the exact scoring but I'm thinking something like: 5 points for picking the correct place a film comes in, 25 points for being the closest contestant to the final US domestic theatrical gross, 20 for 2nd, 15 for 3rd, 10 for 4th, 5 for 5th, and -10 points if one of your picks doesn't even crack the top 10. I might change it up depending on the number of entrants. (And if only a handful of people sign up, I'm cancelling the contest outright.)

For lists of release dates, go to Boxofficemojo.com or just google film release dates. To see the official SoulHonky picks, keep reading.

Continue reading " CONTEST: Summer Box Office Contest" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:27 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Check out the opening sequence over at Hulu. Thanks to Slashfilm.com for tweeting about this. Yes, I actually found something on Twitter to be useful.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:03 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on Wolverine.

Apple.com/trailers has an internet trailer for X-Men Origins: Wolverine and it basically looks a lot like the past trailers except this time they thought it was a good idea to let Will.I.Am speak. The film also relies, yet again, on the almost comical money shot of Wolverine flying towards a helicopter and latching on for dear life. On one hand, I'm happy that they don't show us too much footage but they should have found a better selling point than that ridiculous moment. If that's the best they have to offer, I can't imagine it's going to be good. After all, with a baker's dozen worth of new mutants or younger version of familiar X-Men, it's not like this film is going to have any story or character development to lean on if the action scenes disappoint.

All in all, the film looks like it will be as bad as X3 yet I'm still going to go see it. Can I really complain about the marketing era of Hollywood when I keep falling for it; going to franchises that I have no faith in just to pass the time? What will it take for me to give up on the X-Men franchise?

Are there any films that get you ready and willing to throw 12 bucks down the drain? A sequel that you'd go to see even if you knew it was going to be lackluster? I spared myself the mistake of seeing Spiderman 3 or Superman Returns but there's something about the Wolverine character. If I was a bigger Jim Jarmusch fan I could at least go to see his new film, "The Limits of Control" first but I'm not a huge fan.  Who knows, maybe something else will strike me fancy or I'll decide to actually start reading something.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:38 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Rachel McAdams's presence in "State of Play" gives it a weird feel, well for me at least. At once it was refreshing to see McAdams back on the big screen, where she more than held her own against Russell Crowe. On the other hand, there was something about the film that just seemed worn. It's a tried-and-true political thriller that is well-directed, the acting is great from top-to-bottom, and it keeps you on your toes. It was directed Kevin Macdonald, who did "The Last King of Scotland" and "Dupicity" & "Michael Clayton" writer Tony Gilroy (who adapted the film along with a couple of other writers). So just imagine those two guys bringing you a film that is like "The Interpreter" meets Micheal Keaton's "The Paper." Better yet, imagine "All the President's Men" if modern studio execs got their hands on it, upped the violence a little, and focused on keeping the pace up (to the detriment of the tension and struggle). In terms of quality, I'd say it's a notch below Russell Crowe's "3:10 to Yuma".

If you need constant action to keep your attention or have trouble following stories if they don't spell out everything, you might have some issues but, all in all, it's a good film. I wouldn't give it a SoulHonky recommendation but let's just say that it's probably the most agreeable film that's out right now. Everybody will be happy to go see it but nobody will be thrilled by it. If I was giving it a letter grade, it would be a solid enough B.

For the spoiler filled reaction, continue reading.

Continue reading "Respond/React: State of Play" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:59 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I doubt that this will be the first Iraq movie to make a bundle of money but it just might be the best modern day war movie since Three Kings. Also, it's nice to see former Barney's Beanery regular Jeremy Renner continue to do good work.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:35 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

And that child is named Miley.

Miley Cyrus's Hannah Montana movie opened with huge numbers on Friday and could make 40 - 50 million this weekend. And while most of the hype will be about the Disney machine (and rightfully so), I have to hope that this also wakes Hollywood up to the fact that females can open movies. Yeah, it's a long shot but a boy can dream, can't he? Can't Evan Rachel Wood (left) get a chance?

The reason I bring this up is because I just read Entertainment Weekly's list of funniest actresses. The list is kind of silly because there's no way to really say who is "funnier" (I mean, Jane Lynch vs. Jessica Walters vs. Allison Janney alone could keep people arguing for weeks) but what it really showed was the fact that Hollywood has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to actresses and, unfortunately, they are all being wasted.

For a while I wondered why actresses like Wood, Amy Adams, Taraji P. Henson, Isla Fisher, Kerry Washington, Penelope Cruz, etc. couldn't seem to find the roles that would land them in the Julia/Reese class. Then I noticed that current A-listers like Renee Zelwegger and Kate Hudson can't even find good roles. How in the world is an up-and-coming star going to get their chance? No wonder most talented actresses head over to TV; Samantha Who? might not be the greatest show in the world but it's probably much better than anything Christina Applegate was getting offered by film studios.

Look at this year. The next movies getting a wide release with female's as the #1 lead are "Drag Me to Hell" and Sandra Bullock's "The Proposal". This is basically it for women. Horror films or rom-coms that seem like they were supposed to come out in the late 90's. Finally there are some more female-centric films in August & September but the year will be basically 2/3's over until the women get a shot. Also, why put them all together? With the finals of March Madness and baseball's opening day just happening, don't you think now is a time in which women would have some leverage on their boyfriends when it comes to what movie they go see?

Hollywood has a class of actresses that might just be able to hold their own against the Golden Era leading ladies like Hayworth, Hepburn, Lombard, Loy, etc. Give them a chance. If it means remaking those classic era films, fine. Do something. Hollywood can't let this much talent go to waste.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:38 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

A lot of people are whining about "Fast and Furious" making 30 million on Friday. They claim that it will just inspire Hollywood to make more lousy films. While that might be true, they are missing the bigger element of ths film's success: it was a truly multicultural event. This film appealed to whites, blacks, latinos, and Asians. It may be, as I noted before, little more than car porn but it appealed to a wide demographic and it offered an escape or a diversion.

Compare that to the critical darling "Adventureland", a lily-white film that featured two leads who were basically upper-middle class and who looked down at their menial job, They acted like they were above it  all even though they didn't do a good job and got stoned/drunk while at work.

Again, this is not to defend the quality of Fast and Furious but it's really all that is out there for fans of action films.  Also, look at the films that have come out so far this year; it's almost a complete white wash. The only films that have really featured "minority" actors are the Madea and Notorious.

As for the complaints about the mainstream, it reminds me of a great exchange from Aaron Sorkin's script "The American President". An edited version is:

Lewis: They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Shepherd: People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference. 

Most critics would agree with The President; the people don't really know what makes a great movie. I would argue that most people aren't looking for what critics consider "great". And they never have. If you look at some of the now classic screwball comedies of yesteryear, they were not appreciated by the critics. "Bringing Up Baby" was an unmitigated disaster when it came out while "It's a Wonderful Life" was met with mixed reviews. Now I'm not saying that anyone is going to look back at any of the F&F movies like they do those two but critics have always been harsher on mainstream fare than they should be. "The Rock" is one of the better action films out there and even it got mixed reviews.

To me, dismissing the mainstream for not appreciating artistic films is as ignorant as the mainstream dismissing art house films as just boring. People are just looking for different things out of their movie-going experience and to dismiss a film out of hand because it didn't meet your criteria is the sign of a closed mind.

Unfortunately, the divide between art house and mainstream is growing and there are very few top level directors who seem at all interested in trying to challenge themselves to work within the desires of the mainstream (let alone broaden it). Even worse, producers have realized that they have a captive audience and that they simply don't need to employ these better directors to elevate their genre. Since nobody else seems to be trying it, it's better to just roll out the latest young director and have him make a competent enough flick. In this risk adverse Hollywood that is focused simply on marketing, it just makes more sense to take the easy money and not risk trying to make a great film that could miss its mark and flop.

Fast and Furious was a perfect storm. It was a multi-cultural action film that arrived in a sort of white vacuum. It should be interesting to see if it doesn't plummet in its second week ala Watchmen but to just blame the mainstream for seeing a dumb movie is to miss the boat on what really made this movie a huge success.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:44 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

If "Adventureland" is a film made for critics, "Fast and Furious" is one that is made in spite of them. Of course critics aren't going to like it.  It's little more than car porn. There are some poorly/passably acted scenes that are just there to set up the next chase.

Personally, I wasn't wowed by the chase scenes because, like the opening scene in "Quantum of Solace", I was never able to really get a handle on what was going on. Also, the chases are far more relient on CGI than in the original which takes away some of the allure. All in all, it's a competent enough, quickly paced action film that also gets points for featuring former Miss Israel Gal Gadot who is extremely easy on the eyes.

This is a film that really needs no suggestion because you already know if you are going to like it or not. The films doesn't transcend nor does it disappoint. It's the kind of films that meets expectations, no matter what the expectations may be.

And while critics can complain about films like this, the people have spoken as it is on pace to have the Biggest April Opening of All-Time. That's not to say that the movie is good but the audience seems to know what it wants. The question is whether producers will just continue to churn out the lowest common denominator or if they'll try to elevate these mainstream films.

My guess is no. Someday people might realize that the greatest challenge in show business is combining show and business and making a great film that reaches the masses. Instead "The Artists" will just keep challenging themselves with movies that most people don't want to see while the mainstream films will be handled by "The Adequate".

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:32 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

"Adventureland" proves that if you have talented actors give muted performances and shoot them in grainy film stock, critics will gladly overlook the cliches and illogical moments of your film. Many people seem to think that if something is low key, it can't be ridiculous. Unfortunately, "Adventureland" is indeed ridiculous and as hollow as any vapid teen dramedy. It's set in the 80's which is fitting since it is basically a typical 80's teen romance except with the contrived plotline removed.

Unfortunately, by removing the plotlines and making the characters more "real", the film loses a lot of its charm. Imagine "Some Kind of Wonderful" without the tension. Or if someone took out the plot and interesting character quirks of "One Crazy Summer."  It's a bit like "Dazed and Confused" without a single memorable quote or moment. How about "Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist" if everyone was just randomly wandering around New York and had nowhere to be (although to be fair, I thought this was better than "Nick and Nora"). I'd say the film was on par with the Justine Bateman/Julia Roberts flick "Satisfaction" but even that was paced better. (Oh and do NOT expect anything close to "Superbad"; it's a completely different genre) I'm sure the critics also ate up the fact that the film mocked hits like "Rock Me Amadeus" and celebrated Lou Reed but it just didn't work here. It was more "Elizabethtown" than "Almost Famous".

Kristin Stewart gave a great understated performance but this film needed someone with more personality.  The main love story was flimsy and the main characters had to carry it (ala Duplicity) and Kristin and Jesse just didn't do it. Granted, I'm sure for many people this lack is actually part of the charm but it didn't work for me. This film desperately needed to spread its focus onto other characters ala "Mystic Pizza" because the main love story just didn't have enough to carry the weight.

All that being said, if you just LOVED the romance movies I mentioned above (or if you liked Elizabethtown or Nick and Nora's Infinite Playlist, then you might enjoy this film.  Or if you find understated stories to somehow be more riveting then this could be up your alley.

For the spoilery reaction, read on. 

Continue reading " Respond/React: Adventureland" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:57 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Not safe for work. This trailer makes Bruno look a lot more set-up than Borat did, or maybe they just went to crazier situations that seem fake. Still, it looks funny and I'll probably be there on opening weekend.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:42 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Holidays often inspire good movies. Even a silly celebration like Groundhog's Day can be fodder for a classic film. But what are the worst? I'm sure there are some terrible Christmas movies but what about other lesser holidays? One of the worst has to be "April Fool's Day". It's so bad that one doc on horror movies basically blamed it for ending the golden era of horror films. I think that's going a bit overboard but it's an undeniably bad movie.

So what else is out there?

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:04 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

As someone who is a bit of a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I always get excited about any information that comes out about the upcoming movie. But then reality sets in and I remember that it is directed by Guy Ritchie.

Now don't get me wrong, I like Guy Ritche's work but he is definitely a genre filmmaker and I'm not sure if the detective from 221B Baker St. is really in his wheelhouse. The four names attached to the screenplay don't exactly make things look any better. It's from the guys who brought you: Don't Say A Word, X3, Jumper, and Revolver. And then there was a report on Twitter (yeah, I know) that the first footage was funnier than expected. I don't know what to expect. I'm sure it will be fine; I liked Lock, Stock all three times Ritchie made it but I was hoping for more from the source material.

Then I realized that there really isn't a movie that I'm dying to see this year. Terminator: Salvation looks interesting and the Star Trek trailer was great but I"m not really amped up for either of those. Shutter Island might be in the lead; Yeah Marty and Leo are IMO 1 for 3 but it's also a Dennis Lehane novel and Mystic River and Gone Baby Gone were both quality flicks. Public Enemies looks interesting but I'm just not a huge fan of Michael Mann.

Hopefully some of the smaller releases or upcoming trailers will revive my interest in movies. I know (500) Days of Summer was intriguing and I've heard good word about The Hurt Locker but we shall see.  

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:59 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

The movie "Labor Pains" could mark the end of two trends. The first is Lindsay Lohan as a viable star of any sort. Reports on multiple sites have the film going straight-to-DVD; one of the final nail's on Lohan's career's coffin. Granted, her last few films haven't made any money so it shouldn't be a surprisebut this film was supposed to be a comeback of sorts rather than a death knell.

And while I'm not really all that intrigued on whether Lohan stays or goes, one fad I'm hoping will come to an end is the boring movie poster with just a color and white glow in the background. I think it started with 40 Year Old Virgin and then was used on Knocked Up but since then it seems like more and more films are using this. Hopefully, Labor Pains will mark the end to this too and we can maybe get some interesting looking posters.

For this poster in particular, the cheap look just makes it look like a straight-to-DVD picture and a cheap knockoff of Knocked Up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:24 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

"Knowing" is a 70's pseudo-intellectual sci-fi B-movie made with the special effects of the Aughts. Well, except for one important scene which looked like it came from the early 90's. I wouldn't recommend the film to anyone but if you like dumb sci-fi or enjoyed Nic Cage's recent films then it might be up your alley. The audience I saw it with left the theater grumbling "terrible". A British guy said that "It started bad. And then it got worse." Personally, I didn't think it was terrible because I wasn't ever really bored. It was effective enough filmmaking with a silly screenplay. The best comparison would be that it's the spooky sci-fi equivalent to "Eagle Eye".

The more interesting discussion, however, is Roger Ebert's response to the film. Ebert's initial review was overwhelmingly positive. He then wrote a kind of rebuttal piece, a respose to both the people commenting on his own site and to the rest of the critical world (almost all of whom panned the film). It's a bit puzzling because in his follow-up, he acts stunned that people thought the movie would be anything but preposterous. He writes:

Believe me, I know the plot is preposterous. That's part of the charm. You go to an end-of-the-world thriller starring Nicolas Cage looking scared to death, and you're in for a dime, in for a dollar. I love to dissect improbabilities in movies, but with "Knowing" I simply didn't care. I was carried by the energy. The premise, about that little girl in 1959 sealing up her letter, is preposterous. Every ad starts with that. What were you expecting, the Scientific American?

Well, no. What I think people were expecting was one of the best sci-fi films possibly ever. Why would they think that? Well because that's how Ebert opened his review: "Knowing" is among the best science-fiction films I've seen -- frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. In its very different way, it is comparable to the great "Dark City," by the same director, Alex Proyas.

Also, the premise isn't the problem. It's the fact that 90% of what happens afterward is preposterous. Our heroes actions, others people's reactions, little head-scratchers like why a cell phone with no signal would be able to get a call from a landline.

Ebert's review does mention that the story is somewhat preposterous but it's a quick line and and he even seems to makes excuses for why the preposterous stuff should be acceptable. He then goes on to say it is expert and confident storytelling, which it isn't. The only way that it is expert and confident is if you also think schlockmeisters like Russ Meyer are geniuses (which most people don't). Calling this movie one of the best sci-fi films ever is like calling "Live Free or Die Hard" one of the best action movies ever. I loved that film but I also realized that it was ridiculous and I warned everyone to whon I recommend it that they needed to go in expecting an over-the-top superhero movie.

Sadly, whenever Ebert defends the film, he usually defends it for being cheefully crappy which probably isn't what his readers expected when they saw "best sci-fi movie" in the opening paragraph.

For a further response (with spoilers), read on. 

Continue reading " Respond/React: Knowing" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:11 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Duplicity could be the Ghost World of 2008. A film that is simply fine but nothing great but gets more love than it should because of the people involved. Tony Gilroy is a gifted writer but I think his press clippings are a little much. "Michael Clayton" was good not great, an art house version of "The Firm". "Duplicity" plays like a lighter version of a lesser Mamet work; clever, twisty, forgettable.

If there's one thing that Tony Gilroy should be forced to stop doing though is playing with the chronology of his films. The flash forward at the beginning of "Clayton" sapped all of the tension out of the later chase scene. In "Duplicity", the jumps forward/back in time really don't add anything and again, it kind of saps the power out of one of the kicker scenes.

This movie is good enough to get a slight recommendation but there's no reason to see it in the theaters. It's almost the definition of a rental.  

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:01 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I almost want to see this because Crank was absolutely ridiculous and this seems like it's going to be even more out there. Probably will just throw it on the Netflix queue and forget about it but I really love the tagline.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:30 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

I really don't think my expectations for X-Men Origins: Wolverine could be any lower. OK, if they replaced Hugh Jackman with Kate Hudson, my expectations would be lower but still, everything I've seen/read about this movie has me worried.

One of the main problems is that the film is supposed to be about Wolverine's origins but instead it seems filled to the gills with new characters (and a few characters we've met before as younger kids). I get that there are going to be other mutants in this but it's getting a little out of hand. Even worse, the marketing team seems to be running with this quantity angle, making me think that there could be a lack of quality.

Now I wouldn't have a major problem with this except the film already had reshoots and the reason for that was to get more screen time for two of the supporting characters. Those characters? Ryan Reynolds's Deadpool and Dominic Monaghan's Beak. You'll note that neither of them were in this extended ad and I'm not sure Beak has shown up in any trailer. So besides all of the characters listed in that ad, there are two more side characters who have more involved stories than originally intended. Oh, and there's the whole thing about Wolverine apparently fighting in every war in American history.

On the bright side, they did have the common sense to limit Will. I. Am's exposure. He only shows up twice in this ad (and his character's name never pops up either).

Maybe I'm up in arms over nothing but this film seems like it's making the too many characters mistake than many comic book movies have made and, right now, I can't say that it looks more promising than X3 did when the trailers first started airing. So while Star Trek and Terminator: Salvation are impressing people with their trailers, Wolverine finds itself fading. Not good.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:00 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

I was kind of intrigued by the trailer for "Knowing" and I still have faith in Alex Proyas, director of "Dark City". But it's starring Nic Cage and he has delivered some terrible films. I basically wrote it off as a rental but I'm not intrigued by the reviews. Most of them say the film is stupid. The Boston Globe's Ty Burr opens his review with the following paragraph:

"It's a Nicolas Cage movie, so, admit it, you're expecting crazy. You have no idea. The star's latest, "Knowing," starts off mildly ridiculous, ascends to the full-blown ludicrous, and finally sails boldly off the edge of the absolutely preposterous. Throughout it all, Cage's grim sense of purpose stays in place, as does his hairpiece. You have to admire such dedication amid apocalypse, even as you're hooting through your fingers in disbelief."

But then Roger Ebert comes in and drop this bomb.

Very strange. I have no idea what to expect but I'm not sure if I want to waste 14 bucks and two hours on my life just on Ebert's opinion.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:40 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Granted, a lot of horror films start with the "Oh crap we killed someone!" premise but this one seems a little to close to "I Know What You Did Last Summer". The cloaked bag guy wielding a tire iron instead of a hook. Nevermind that I have no idea why the guy merks the girl like he does. He picked up the tire iron to... start cutting her up? Who knows. And yes, this film stars two reality stars (Real World's Jamie and The Hills' Audrina) and is brought to you buy the guys who wrote Good Luck Chuck.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:17 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Two underappreciated actors, a hip soundtrack, a love story that isn't a love story. (500) Days of Summer has all the makings of a film that I love but that many people hate. And when they hate it, they'll throw the term hipster around like it's an epithet. Granted, I somehow curse to supposed "cool" kids the same way but in this case, I'm with them. I'm a fan of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel and while the teaser trailer intrigued me, this one has me definitely in line to check this film out. Here's the trailer:

As an added bonus, Fox Searchlight is also running a little poll to vote on which one sheet the film should go with. You can vote for it here. I went with option 4. The first option looks like the standard crappy rom-com poster and I liked the big pic of Zooey's eye over the Polaroids.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:19 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

The new trailer for Terminator: Salvation is pretty damn good which means maybe all the ranting and raving was worth it for Christian Bale. If the film is as good as the trailer, Bale might be Hollywood's lucky charm when it comes to rebooting franchises. If that is indeed the case, then which franchise should Christian save next?

Honorable Mention goes to Police Academy, The Evil Dead, and Best of the Best. So what are the ten franchises that could use a little more CB (and I don't mean Cow Bell *rimshot*)

Continue reading " The Bale-out" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:42 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

First off, this trailer loses points for breaking the SoulHonky 10 year rule. Renny Harlin can only be considered "the director of..." films he's made in the last decade (on the bright side, "The Long Kiss Goodnight" and "Cutthroat Island" are also off of his record). So this film is brought to you by the director of: Cleaner, The Covenant, Exorcist: The Beginning, Mindhunters, Driven, or Deep Blue Sea. Personally, I'd go with The Covenant and Mindhunters.

However, I might give them a pass if this film is what it seems to be and is a rip-off of all films Die Hard. Look at the trailer, you have a plot that is basically straight out of Die Hard with a Vengeance. Two scenes (the elevator and the house exploding) that were done before in Die Hard on a Bus (aka Speed). You have a lead actor in John Cena who is probably hope he can become the next Steven Seagal, star of Die Hard on a Boat (aka Under Siege). The villain, played by The Wire's Aiden Gillen, looks like a mix of Speed's Dennis Hopper and Die Hard's Alan Rickman. Some of the action scenes look about as believable as Live Free or Die Hard.

So, without further ado, the latest film from the director of The Covenant and the producer of 10,000 BC... 12 Rounds

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:55 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

If the terms "perfectly charming" or "adorably fun" should ever be used (and I'm really questioning whether I should have just typed them) they should be used to describe "He's Just Not That Into You". The film is the epitome of cute even though most of the film is more rejection comedy than romantic comedy. Ginnifer Goodwin is going to have a lot more fans after this one and Kevin Connolly and Bradley Cooper could be able to spin this into a shot at a leading role.

That being said, you pretty much already know whether or not you'll like this movie. If you like rom-coms, you'll like this film. It's one of the better pure romantic comedies (as opposed to the Apatow coming of age stories) to come out in some time. It doesn't, however, transcend the genre and for every couple of laughs, there's a moment that will have ladies breathing "Aaaaw!" and lads belching "Ugh." If you don't like schmaltz, this film is not for you. If you are so-so on rom-coms then I'd recommend renting this; I liked it but there's no reason to make time to go see it in the theater.

It's essentially the XX chromosome version of "Taken". It delivers what its audience desires and makes little-to-no attempt to mask the fact that it's a genre film with a specific audience.

For a more detailed and spoiler-filled reaction to the movie, read on.

Continue reading " Respond/React: "He's Just Not That Into You"" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:44 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:20 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Ho. Lee. Shit. "Taken" starring Liam Neeson as a retired "preventer" (aka absolute shit kicker), is a throwback to the old days of no apologies action films. This film is like "The Transporter" except the replaced the cheesy, over-the-top action with utter brutality. If a parent or human rights group sees this movie, they'll shit a brick. This is the kind of films that kids love and parents despise. My blood was racing after the film ended. They don't make films like this anymore. (Click below to read more on "Taken")

Continue reading " Review: Taken" »

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:13 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:42 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:36 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

So my friend Will convinced me that there is basically an unwritten rule that films need to be out 20 years for them to be eligible to be remade. It makes sense. I couldn't find an American film from the 90's that's been remade (although I have to think there's at least one). Movies from the 1990 won't be able to be remade until next year.

But that got me thinking, what films from 1989 have just become for Hall of Remake eligible? Which ones could get the remake treatment? Here's the Top 15. (And I will not even SUGGEST that they should even THINK about remaking Field of Dreams.)

1. War of the Roses: Is the current economic climate really right for a film about rich people fighting over their possessions in a bitter divorce? Perhaps it could add a "Hey, even wealthy people are miserable." or "Be Careful What You Wish For?" angle to make it more palatable. An interesting cast could be Denzel Washington (who is looking to do a comedy) and Vivica A. Fox. Josh Brolin and Cate Blanchett? Hollywood would probably go for Ben Affleck and Nicole Kidman and the movie would flop.

2. The Wizard: With video games growing in popularity, I have no idea how this film hasn't been remade or ripped off yet. A studio would probably sell-out, go for the brand trade-out and call it The Wii-zard but whatever, something looking like this film has got to be in the pipeline in some studio.

3. Parenthood: Parenthood is an example of a good movie that SHOULD be ripped off. Many of the issues of raising kids are timeless but the specific issues change. Watching parents deal with raising kids in the era of the internet and cellphone should open up a remake or rip-off of this film to a ton of new opportunities. If Kevin James wanted to raise the level of sophistication of his comedies, this could be a good choice. Hollywood's first choice would probably be Ben Stiller.

4. When Harry Met Sally: They seem to be touching on the Can Men and Women Just Be Friends? angle in "He's Just Not That Into You." And like Parenthood, this storyline could be opened up a bit because of the new era of dating and friendship. Part of me would like to see Chiwetel Ejiofor and Taraji P. Henson get a shot at this but maybe this is a chance to reunite "Accepted" co-stars Blake Lively and Justin Long. Or maybe bring Jason Bateman and Charlize Theron together again. The moguls would likely see this as a chance to reteam Cameron Diaz and Ashton Kutcher or something like Drew Barrymore and Seth Rogen.

5. Turner and Hooch: Dogs are big now. The cast for this could be anyone from Gerard Butler to Martin Lawrence to Jason Segal to Tilda Swinton. I'm thinking Hollywood goes with either Shia LeBeof or this is the film where they finally give Common his chance to be a leading man.

6. The Abyss: I can't really remember this film well enough to make suggestions but it sure seems like something they'd hand Roland Emmerich or Brett Ratner. Ditto for Leviaton.

7. Black Rain: The original film was set in Japan but it would make sense to move it to the ever strengthening China. Josh Brolin as the American cop in over his head. The Mark Strong, the Y2K Andy Garcia, could take Garcia's role and get his head chopped off.

8. K-9: Did I mention dogs were hot right now? If Kevin James doesn't want to get more sophisticated, this would be his film. Honestly, I could see most of the Happy Madison crew from Sandler to Schnieder taking this one. And while they deserve better, this might be the kind of film that Craig Robinson or JB Smoove would have to take to get a shot at being a leading man.

9. Her Alibi: Even with modern CGI you can't match Tom Selleck's moustache but perhaps James Marsden or Greg Kinnear could fill his shoes while Olga Kurylenko takes over Paulina Porizkova's role.

10. The January Man: My guess is Ryan Reynolds would get this role but part of me wouldn't mind Mark Wahlberg slipping back into comedy and getting back to where he was in films like "I Heart Huckabees" and "The Big Hit".

11. Dream A Little Dream: Not up on my tween stars so I can't say who would replace the Corey's but maybe we change the genders and go with Miley Cyrus and Vanessa Hudgens?

12. UHF: My guess is Friedberg and Seltzer would get a hold of this and make it terrible but it's the kind of film that a lot of the sketch comedy guys like Patton Oswalt, Seth Green, and friends might be able to make work.

13. Kickboxer: starring Jason Statham. Seems obvious.

14. Three Fugitives: Well Abigail Breslin plays the girl and maybe she reteams with her Little Miss Sunshine pops, Greg Kinnear, who could slip into the Martin Short role? How do you cast someone to replace Nolte? I'd have to go with Val Kilmer.

15. Casualties of War: Move this war crimes movie into the Iraq conflict and you have a sure-fire bomb no matter who is cast. Well, besides Will Smith. Still, that hasn't stopped Hollywood from trying to make Iraq War movies.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:29 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

Paul Rudd and Jason Segal are teaming up for with the writer/director of Along Came Polly to deliver another romantic comedy. Or rather a buddy comedy which kind of treats finding a friends like it's similar to dating? Anyway, the premise is that Paul Rudd is getting married, has no male friends, and has to find a best man for his wedding. A very strange idea especially since the character of Rudd's brother (the obvious choice of best man) is helping lead the best man search.

Before I go further. Here are the trailers.

Overlooking the odd premise, this movie also seems to be falling deeper into the sinkhole that is the red band/Cursing is Comedy phenomenon. If you watch the two trailers below, you'll notice that they are almost identical. One has swears removed, the other has more swears, more shots of dogs pooping, and only one actually new element (the oral sex issue). In some cases, the red band trailer extends scenes to include swears which seems to play into the recent comedic fad of taking a questionably funny joke and cursing a lot in it to make it funny.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of low brow humor (the script I'm working on now is filled with it) and think that a well-placed swear can make a world of difference (the only good part of Wanted was hearing Morgan Freeman say, "Somebody shoot this MOTHER FUCKER!"). But even I think that it's starting to get a bit out of hand.

The bigger issue, though, is that the trailers have different versions of scenes. The common logic behind red band trailers is that they include scenes that were too raunchy to put in the all audiences trailer. But this film has the exact same scenes, just raunchier versions.  The opening of the first trailer has the Edited for TV version with Rashida Jones's friends saying "sex" and "lock that stud down". The red band has the raunchier version with "fucked" and "lock that tongue down" (a cunnilngus reference, if you haven't watched the trailers) The question, of course, is which version am I going to see? Did they alter the movie to be able to get an All Audience Preview or did they add some stuff in order to get the raunchier Red Band?

One of these trailers is selling a movie that is different from the one people are expecting. I'd have to guess that it's the first trailer which means a lot of people could be waltzing into a friendly little comedy and getting inundated with gross-out, if-I-curse-it's-funny humor. I know that a lot of this isn't really new but as I said before, it's starting to get out of hand. Or as I'd say in my red band version, this goddamn shit's getting out of mother fucking hand. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:07 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Hollywood loves a good bandwagon. Mickey Rourke couldn't get cast for a decade and now he's getting cast in "Iron Man 2" and a handful of other films. Similarly, if someone breaks out, it seems like everyone wants to catch the rising star. Danny McBride went from a role in a small indie film to seemingly popping up in every other comedy that came out (Paul Rudd got the other half). And it now looks like we have a new rising star.

Aubrey Plaza is the name and she's spun her Apatow approval (she's cast in Apatow's next directorial venture "Funny People") into a role on Amy Poehler's upcoming show and now a spot in the new film from Edgar Wright (Spaced, Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz). This Upright Citizen's Brigade alum seems to have made the leap from her supporting roles on web-series (she played Jeannie Tate's daughter {see below} and had a role on ESPN's Mayne Street) to the big screen.

Will she make it to Steve Carrell leading man status or settle into the background ala David Koechner? Only time will tell.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:43 AM | Permalink |Digg It!

The Sundance Film Festival has already seen it's first sale. The movie is called "Rudo y Cursi" and stars Diego Luna and Gael Garcia Bernal as brothers who have risen from humble beginnings to become superstar soccer players. Unfortunately, their stardom turns the two brothers into bitter rivals.

Sounds like something that John C. Reilly and Will Ferrell would love to star in, especially if you turned futbol into American football. I could see the avid USC football fan jumping at the opportunity to get his shot at a football movie. That being said, Reilly and Ferrell are a little old for the role so maybe it's time to look elsewhere. The Wilson brothers could fit in, maybe have Wes Anderson do the remake, but I'd still rather try to stick with younger or up-and-coming actors. So what could some other options be? Here are a few ideas:

Craig Robinson and Idris Elba: Would love to see Robinson get his shot at a leading role and I think Elba could be a perfect counterpart in a football movie.

Danny McBride and Bradley Cooper: This also could be Cooper's shot at a leading role. He's been relegated to jerk status (Wedding Crashers) or best friend roles (Failure to Launch, Yes Man) so far so maybe this is his chance. This might be better suited as a baseball movie but boxing, tennis, or even MMA could work.

James Franco and James Marsden: Franco refound his footing with "Pineapple Express" and might want to stick with comedy for a bit. I also think Marsden is highly underrated as a comedic actor and could be a nice complement to Franco.

Ben Foster and Emile Hirsch: Not sure if either can do comedy but they are great actors and I'd pay to see them battle it out.

Leighton Meester and Olivia Thirlby: Replacing Meester with Ellen Page and bringing the Juno girls back together might be a better marketing strategy but I think Meester and Thirlby are a nice contrasts of styles. If you're going for total prissiness (and want the girls to look alike) maybe team Meester with Minka Kelly.

Sarah Shahi and Frieda Pinto: If just to look at them and encourage them to team up for a Maxim photoshoot.

I'm sure there are tons of better options out there. Any ideas?

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:26 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

January is a dumping ground for most studios so it isn't a surprise that there aren't many good new movies arriving at the local theaters. Because of this, most of my time will likely be spent catching up on Oscar-bait that I didn't see in 2008. As of now, "Gran Torino" and "Valkyrie" have been relegated to Netflix status while I'm on the fence when it comes to "The Wrestler". The film looks interesting enough but I've already seen the documentary "Beyond the Mat" and the main character in Darren Aronofsky's film seems like it is based heavily on Jake "The Snake" Roberts. While I don't doubt that Mickey Rourke is compelling in The Wrestler, I doubt it can match the feeling of watching a guy you watched when you were growing up struggle with his demons, try to reconnect with his daughter, and ultimately fall back into the world of addiction. "Beyond the Mat" is a must-see for anyone who grew up watching the old WWF and I think it would probably be an interesting watch for even those people who barely know wrestling exists. The mixed reviews for "Revolutionary Road" and "Doubt" haven't helped them but I think I'll probably see them both in the theaters. 

As for the new releases, there really isn't much there. "Bride Wars" reeks of rental. Anne Hathaway is getting Oscar buzz for "Rachel Getting Married" but let's hope for her sake that this pairing with Kate Hudson isn't indicative of her future. Maybe it's the tabloid stuff but there's something about Hathaway that is rather irksome; I really can't see her fulfilling what was once through to be her destiny of becoming the next Julia Roberts. 

"Notorious" is a non-starter for me. I'm just not sure what exactly Biggie did that was so revolutionary that he needs his own movie. "Paul Blart: Mall Cop" seems like something I'd have no problem ignoring, I rarely see horror films in the theater and none of the January films interest me (or even seem all that different), and I think I can further delay seeing the much-delayed films like "Possession", "Outlander", and "Killshot". Being a rom-com nerd, I could actually see myself going to "New in Town" but Renee Zelwegger is just too hard to watch. She's used to be adorable but now she comes off as a mousy version of Jennifer Tilly (but with worse luck with botox). That being said, it would be nice to see Jennifer Tilly make a little comeback.

The one movie that, if it gets good reviews, could get me to the the movies is "Taken". It doesn't look like much but it could be the kind of low-watt actioner that is a decent diversion one afternoon. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:32 PM | Permalink |Digg It!

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:47 PM | Permalink |Digg It!