Futures Market 2010, Part 2

Every year The Middle Room attempts to look towards tomorrow, to predict, with what we hope is near-perfect accuracy, the quality of films yet to come.  And, with few exceptions, we typically embarrass ourselves.

Last time, we considered the opening films of summer, but now we must gaze further into the haze of the future and June.

Half of July will be thrown in for good measure.

The A-Team (June 11)
Estimated Tomatometer: 40%

The quality of this film will likely be directly proportionate to the number of times they play the original theme song during the course of the movie.  The trailer offers an uneven impression: we're thrilled to see this level of absurdity, but not impressed with some of the CG effects, particularly connected to the falling tank.  Even so, this movie has certainly caught our interest.


The Karate Kid (June 11)
Estimated Tomatometer: 55%

While we don't have plans to see this, the fact that two remakes from the eighties are opening the same weekend is worth noting.  We don't have anything against the trailer to this movie, actually.  A remake of the Karate Kid certainly seems unnecessary, but it certainly appears to have been made in the spirit of the original, even if the martial art in question has changed.


Jonah Hex (June 25)
Estimated Tomatometer: 45%

Divided into its components - into the cellular units the film is constructed of - it is difficult to explain why we are not more excited about this movie.  However, the previews offer us little hope that Jonah Hex will deliver an experience equal to its source material.  The cause for this discrepancy is fairly straightforward: the filmmakers seem to have approached the character and concept as being comical, when there are few characters who should be treated as seriously as Jonah Hex.

That said, the most venomous insult thrown at Jonah Hex appears to be that it may be no better than Wild Wild West, and despite its many flaws, we kind of enjoyed that film.  Regardless of our impression, we doubt critics will be forgiving.


Toy Story 3 (June 25)
Estimated Tomatometer: 99.8%

Neither installment from the Toy Story franchise rates highly on our list of favorites from Pixar.  That said, the films are still produced by a company whose worst films exceed the best produced by their rivals (yes, even Cars).  On top of that, Toy Story 2 was an improvement on the first.  These characters are beloved by the filmmakers, and there is every indication that the third may improve on its predecessors.

While we often disagree with critics on many issues, we generally find ourselves in agreement when it comes to Pixar.  Our estimate may be slightly optimistic, but we doubt we'll be off by more than a percentage point or two.


Twilight Saga: Eclipse (June 30)
Estimated Tomatometer: 25%

Before we go on, allow us to assure our readers that we will not see Eclipse.  Even if it were to garner critical approval and strong word of mouth recommendations, we are less than eager to sit in a theater surrounded by that many teenagers.

That said, this is movie about vampires and werewolves (or at least things resembling vampires and werewolves), and and as such is, technically, a film related to geek interests.  For this reason, we include it on our list, despite the fact the trailer managed to lower the bar on vampire/werewolf fighting with what may be the dullest looking battle sequence imaginable.

Van Helsing seems better all the time....



The Last Airbender (July 2)
Estimated Tomatometer: 50%

It is no coincidence that our estimate falls in the dead center of the scale: the simple fact is, we do not know what to make of this film.

Our thoughts on M. Night Shyamalan are in the public record.  While we'd like to believe he's capable of once again crafting a worthwhile production, it's been a long time since such faith was rewarded.

However, the trailers have some promise.  Certainly, it's easy to be underwhelmed by some casting choices, but the effects and stylistic choices cannot help but inspire some optimism.  And yet, we recall being intrigued by the trailer for The Village.

Our estimate is a shot in the dark; an admission of uncertainty which guarantees we won't miss our mark by more than 50%.  We expect our decision to see this will be determined more by word of mouth than by reviews, but we will pay attention.


Predators (July 7)
Estimated Tomatometer: 88%

Are we being optimistic?  Perhaps.  There is, generally speaking, a law of diminishing returns for the quality of sequels to R-rated movie franchises.  But every indication we've seen tells us this will be an exception.  More than that, we have a feeling, an instinctual sensation in our gut, that this will bury the Alien Vs. Predator films and surpass at least Predator 2 (a solid picture) in quality.

Time will tell.


Despicable Me (July 9)
Estimated Tomatometer: 45%

With all due respect to the honorable Steve Carell, the trailers for this have been passable at best.  While we haven't seen anything offensively bad in connection to this, nothing has struck us as unusually good, either.

If our estimate proves low by forty points or more, we may see this.  Barring that, we've little interest in another CG movie without the talent of Pixar behind it.


When next we gather to discuss this subject, we shall leave no reel unturned.  Yes, the third installment shall be the last, and our gaze shall be cast all the way to the end of summer.

Movie Review: Robin Hood

Many claims have been made about Ridley Scott's Robin Hood.  While some are accurate, as many or more are misleading in nature and can lead to confusion about the nature of the film.  In the interest of the public well being, we in The Middle Room have decided to dedicate some of our review to rooting out such misconceptions and setting them right.

This is, in essence, the educational portion of our review, and we will be quite upset if we don't begin receiving some form of federal funding as a result.

It has been said that, in this movie, Ridley Scott is attempting to relaunch Robin Hood in the same vein that Batman Begins or Casino Royale relaunched Batman and Bond.  While there's a kernel of truth to this claim, it fails to fully convey the experience of the film.  The movie may have been shot as if it were a dark and gritty picture, but the writing - and, in many cases, the acting - are another animal entirely.

Imagine, if you will, that the script to the Adam West Batman movie had been picked up by Christopher Nolan, then filmed in the style of The Dark Knight.  Christian Bale is still Batman, and he reads every bat-line in the same raspy voice he's known for.  The lines about bat-shark repellent and not being able to get rid of a bomb are still there, but they're spoken without humor.  Also, the role of the Riddler is played by Frank Gorshin.

Switch the Bale to Crow, Gotham to Nottingham, and Riddler to King John, and you've pretty much described this movie in a nutshell.  The only exception is the plot: the story in the Adam West Batman movie made more sense.  Far more sense, in fact.  More on this in a moment.

It has also been said that this was intended as a more historically accurate version of Robin Hood.  This is blatantly false on more counts than we can easily count.  There may be accurate props, the costumes may be somewhat more believable, and the setting may be more truthful, but overall this no more historically believable than Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.  Or, for that matter, Men in Tights.

If we're mistaken, than our high school world history teachers have some explaining to do.

This is, frankly, not a good movie.  That said, it's not an altogether unenjoyable movie, provided you are willing to dispense with notions like continuity and logic.  Characters have a tendency of instantly traveling great distances between scenes.  The plot folds over on itself; there is little causal connection between one event and the next, nor is there much in the way of consequences.  Meanwhile, characters will occasionally know things in one scene they did not the moment before with no explanation.

This is a movie permeated by images and ideas that feel eerily familiar.  Moments echo from other movies you've seen.  Sure, there's the obvious tipping of the hat to other Robin Hood films and the expected borrowing from Lord of the Rings and Braveheart, but then Darth Maul shows up and betrays England.  And let's not forget the tribe of Lost Boys living in Sherwood.  Or the scene from Saving Private Ryan.  And none of this comes close to the bizarre echo of Queen Elizabeth: The Golden Age that occurs in the final battle sequence.

Also, we finally learn where the Joker got his scars.

It's easy to have fun watching this, though much of that fun comes at the movie's expense.  It's entertaining, for example, to see Alan Doyle from Great Big Sea playing Allan A'Dayle, but he's still singing modern interpretations of folk music.  And Oliver Isaac's Prince John is more or less identical to that of the talking lion in Disney's interpretation.  Seriously.  Watch the first minute or two of this.... then watch this.  IT'S THE SAME SCENE.

Our reaction upon walking out of the theater was to ask, "What the hell was that?"  We've yet to work out an answer.  Was this supposed to be campy?  If so, then why film it like it's a historic epic?  It's almost as if Ridley Scott either couldn't decide or didn't care what he was making.  Is this an update of the Robin Hood of the 1930's?  If so, why tell a prequel?

Fortunately, for all its faults, there was plenty of beautiful imagery and solid action to keep us diverted.  On the Chronicles of Riddick scale, we'll award this two and a half stars out of five.  This was amusing, but, as a ridiculous, medieval prequel adventure with the pretense of serious realism, it falls short of Underworld: Rise of the Lycans.  Still, if you enjoy sword fights and the English countryside - as we do - it may be worth a viewing.

Even so, it's hard to endorse this when you could just go see Iron Man 2 again.

Movie Review: Iron Man 2

The response from critics towards Iron Man 2 has proven less enthusiastic than we predicted.  Fortunately, this discrepancy reveals far more about the critics than the movie itself.  A quick glance at Rotten Tomatoes, where Iron Man 2 has earned a respectable, albeit underrated, 74%, offers some context for those who did not enjoy the movie.  The primary complaint seems to revolve around plot, which many critics - including several who enjoyed the film overall - maintained was light.

It may surprise you to hear that we agree with this assessment.  Where we disagree is in whether this is actually a flaw.

Iron Man 2 is not, strictly speaking, much of a movie in its own right.  It doesn't portray the epic struggle between a hero and his nemesis.  Sure, there's a supervillain, but he's little more than a minor inconvenience.  Tony Stark has always been his own worst enemy, and the movie allows him to serve as both protagonist and adversary.

The events portrayed feel less like a plot than a series of disconnected incidents.  The film doesn't even focus its point of view on Stark, but rather widens to explore those around him.

In essence, they've made a film about the Marvel Universe's relationship with Tony Stark.  We've heard Iron Man 2 described as a bridge to future Marvel films, and again, there's some truth to this.  Only the term carries associations with duller stories, and we find it hard to imagine seeing this as anything less than fascinating.

No, "bridge" is not the word we use.  To us, Iron Man 2 felt like a feature length trailer for what's coming.  Rather than trying to tell a single story, the filmmakers used Iron Man 2 as an opportunity to explore their universe, pulling in more and more characters and artifacts from their source material.  They've offered a vignette of sequences and character arcs exploring the rich universe these films portray.

In comic terms, they've given us the issues between major story lines, the books offering context and development.  From a production standpoint, nothing occurs in Iron Man 2 that couldn't have been skipped: they could simply have made the movie after this one and made veiled references to technological improvements, character growth, and relationships, and we'd have taken it at face value.  That would have been the easy solution.

But they've done something less expected and more courageous.  They've devoted a film to the depth of the Marvel Universe.  And they certainly retained everything that made the first movie successful: Tony Stark's eccentric personality, the sense of adventurous fun, the comedy, and the awesome action scenes.

The issue is that movie reviewers are trying to compare Iron Man 2 with Superman 2.  But this isn't the issue where Zod conquers Earth: instead, it's akin to stories about Clark trying to balance his job and friendships while dealing with threats from Toyman and Metallo.  Iron Man introduced the shared Marvel Universe to theatrical audiences.  Its sequel allows that Universe to take a starring role.  Meanwhile, Robert Downey Jr. deserves an Oscar for his supporting role.

When we reviewed the first movie, we held it against the best modern superhero movies.  Against the same competition, we give Iron Man 2 the same grade: 4 stars out of five.  This is a worthy successor in this series, and, more importantly, a fantastic harbinger of what's coming.

More than a day

No day in the Geekorian calendar is as holy as the first Saturday in May.  It is known by many names: Geek Christmas, Geek Independence Day, and, of course, colloquially as Free Comic Book Day.  It is a day when anyone of any age can walk into nearly any comic book store in the country and receive one or more free comic books.

To the cynic, Free Comic Book Day is about nothing more than this: to them, it is a day about comics.  But this is a flawed description.  Certainly, comic books represent an important aspect to the traditional celebration of Free Comic Book Day, but there is certainly more to the day than mere comic books.

Indeed, we in The Middle Room maintain that were The Leader to steal every issue set to be delivered, Free Comic Book Day would come all the same.  "How?" you may ask.  Because there is a spirit to the day which cannot be stolen or dismissed.

It is the spirit of Getting.  Yes, when you strip away the mass-produced covers and the dozens upon dozens of pages of ads, you find this kernel at the core of every book.  If you look behind the grin of every young child clutching their first free bag of comics, you can see that glint in their eye: this didn't cost them a penny.

The store owners, priestly stewards of the holiday, perceive Free Comic Book Day at a different level: those books cost them money.  But still, the spirit endures, because they are getting new customers.  As are the publishers, who sell the comics at a loss in the hopes of getting new readers who will come back to hand over real money next time for the follow up issue chronicling the coming War of the Supermen.

In some ways, we consider Free Comic Book Day the most quintessentially American of all holidays.  Sure, Christmas and Valentines Day have been blatantly distorted into a crass exploitation of commercialism, but the effects of these last for only a single day.  Those behind Free Comic Book Day hope to manipulate readers - particularly new readers, children - for an entire year.

Or, if you're like us and are willing to stop by a few stores in New York City, you could well find yourself with a year's worth of free reading material free of charge.  In one day, two agents sent from The Middle Room were able to procure 80 comics (39 unique books, 41 duplicates; one of which was signed by Jim Shooter and Dennis Calero), two buttons, one poster, and a War Machine Heroclix figure which will look great beside the Iron Man Heroclix figure we got a few years back.

So, in conclusion, we say to all of you in The Middle Room and beyond, happy Free Comic Book Day, and may Thor bless America.

Futures Market 2010, Part 1

We've few traditions in The Middle Room, but trying to foretell the future has become one.  Every year, we consider the upcoming releases and try to predict, based on trailers and word of mouth, which will be worthy of our money.  As always, our gauge shall be Rotten Tomatoes, the most scientific appraisal available for critical reaction.

In the interest of fair play, we promise to make use of no time travel devices or divination in our attempts.

Here then, are the films for May:


Iron Man 2 (May 7)
Estimated Tomatometer: 90%
The first installment achieved a 93%.  While we expect the sequel to be, if anything, slightly better than the original, we suspect a small number of critics who embraced Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance the first time to betray the series, complaining that they've seen it before.  Regardless what the critics think, we expect we'll see this movie.

However, based on the trailers, we anticipate those of us who are connoisseurs of geek entertainment will be very pleased with this picture.  It is hard to watch previews without thinking of Spider-Man 2, which managed to exceed the first.


Robin Hood (May 14)
Estimated Tomatometer: 75%
In his prime, Ridley Scott directed some of our favorite films.  However, most of those came out in the seventies and eighties.  In truth, we've been less than thrilled with his post-Blade Runner work.  Our hope for Robin Hood is not bolstered by the casting of Russell Crowe.  It's not that we consider Crowe a bad actor, rather that we find him a good actor who usually stars in bad films.  We believe Gladiator, the film Robin Hood most resembles, to be one of the most overrated movies we've ever seen.

The situation is not helped by the fact this is both an origin story and an attempt at realism.  Robin Hood is a figure of myth, not history.  Tell the myth within it's historical context, by all means, but please, tell the myth.  We've had enough "realistic" interpretations of Robin Hood and King Arthur.

Nonetheless, we will likely give this a chance, if for no other reason than Alan Doyle of Great Big Sea was cast as Alan A'Dayle.  Even so, we have more faith critics will respond favorably to this than we will.  Only if critical response is overwhelmingly negative would we rethink our plans.


MacGruber (May 21)
Estimated Tomatometer: 50%
Truth be told, we find extremely unlikely that we'll see this movie.  We've included it on our list because it is, on some level, an 80's action pastiche.  In a summer that will see the release of the A-Team and The Expendables, a clear theme is developing.  Unless we hear very positive recommendations, we'll likely save our money rather than go see a Saturday Night Live spin-off.


Shrek Forever After (May 21)
Estimated Tomatometer: 65%
The original Shrek was a mediocre film, a flawed comedy with enough good moments to make it worth a viewing.  We consider its status as a classic undeserved.  Its sequel was a bit better.  Still far from brilliant, it was at least a solid comedy/adventure.  We never saw the third, but by all indications, there's little reason to do so.

It's difficult to speculate whether the fourth will be at all worthwhile.  Our guess is that it won't be, but then our faith in Dreamworks' animation is less than high.  If, say, ninety percent of critics praise this, we'll likely check it out.



Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (May 28)
Estimated Tomatometer: 60%
While we have little time for most video games, the one this movie is based on happens to be an exception.  We have, in fact, played through Prince of Persia, and found it an enjoyable experience.  Judging by the trailers, the filmmakers seem to have gone with a campy interpretation, a decision we're not too thrilled by.  This is clearly an attempt to recreate the success of Pirates of the Caribbean, and we will sing their praises if they succeed.  If they falter, however, they will have squandered a great opportunity.  Sands of Time is one the rare video games whose premise includes real potential to be taken seriously.


Micmacs (May 28)
Estimated Tomatometer: NA (Current: 79%)
We've yet to decide whether to see Jean-Pierre Jeunet's new film.  While Amelie is one of our favorite foreign films, it cannot be overlooked that Jeunet did, in fact, direct Alien: Resurrection.  While it's yet to be released in the United States, Micmacs came out in France last year, so a number of critics have chimed in.  Whether its score rises or lowers is of little interest to us: in truth, whether we see this in the theater or on DVD has more to do with where it ends up playing than anything else.

Next time, we shall delve further into the summer, gazing into the eye of that enigmatic month known as "June." We may also consider some of July, as time permits.

Movie Review: Kick-Ass

Kick-Ass is, first and foremost, an uncompromising movie.  It was made without studio interference, and the artistic vision of the director comes through the final product, as does the voice of Mark Millar, who originally wrote the comics it's based on.

The thing is, sometimes compromise is a good thing, particularly when subtlety is called for.  As for artistic vision, this is the director of the Stardust we're talking about.  And, while Mark Millar has written some great stories (Red Son is nothing short of fantastic), the majority of his work we've seen has been mediocre at best.  We never did get around to reading Kick-Ass, and we don't feel particularly inspired to do so at the moment.

This isn't to say Kick-Ass is entirely bad.  In fact, as a whole, it averages out to good.  But good won't cut it this time.

The issue isn't so much with the movie as with our expectations.  We've all seen the previews, which were, on a whole, amazing.  Those scenes were amazing in the movie, well: seeing them before hand didn't dull their effect.  What it did was give us an opportunity to imagine what the movie could be.  And that comes down to a single word:

Fun.  This movie could have been fun.  If the pacing had kept up or if the tone had been more consistent, it could have worked at that level at least.  Had they cleaned up the dialogue as well, then it might have reached for something higher.

With that said, this is still worth seeing, though not necessarily in the theater.  Hit Girl is awesome; an eleven year-old girl action hero embodies a facet of superheroics we hadn't seen before.  There's not a lot that wasn't covered in the previews and scenes released online, but there's enough to make this worthwhile.

Ultimately, as a dark spin on superheroes, this just isn't as grand, intriguing, or simply as much fun as Watchmen.  Granted, Watchmen had its problems, but it was certainly an experience to behold.  Kick-Ass had its moments, but it was nothing special.

Kick-Ass might have benefited from studio interference.  If the director had been told "no" from time to time, it could have meant a better film.  And, frankly, if a bit of the violence had been toned down, we doubt the finished product would have been poorer for the loss.

On a scale between one and five stars, where five represents The Incredibles, Kick-Ass gets two and a half.  This is a movie you need to see... but that's what Netflix is for.

DVD Review: Planet Hulk

When DC releases an animated direct-to-DVD feature, we tend to see it immediately, sometimes taking the extra step of traveling forward in time to see it before its release.  When Marvel releases a DVD, we generally get around to it in a few months, depending on how we're feeling.

However, we may need to review this policy.  While Planet Hulk was far from spectacular, it marks the fourth worthwhile production in a row.  While it falls far short of Hulk Vs., it's still a good movie, well worth your time.

We should state now, before continuing, that we have never read the comics this was based on.  As such, we are not aware which elements were imported from the source material and which were created for the film.  Therefore, we're unsure who to blame for the plot holes and cliches, just as we don't know who to applaud for the setting and characters.

Fortunately, much of the story predates the comics.  Obviously, this owes a great deal to Spartacus, as well as John Carter of Mars.  This is an old story with old ideas, but that's kind of a selling point here.  This is a retelling - an adaptation of a sort - that feels more in tone with the old Marvel "What If?" series than anything else.  That this remains in Marvel continuity can't change that fact.

If the notion of seeing the Hulk play the role of Spartacus on Barsoom sounds tedious, then this isn't for you.  If anything, the movie suffers whenever it deviates from this premise.  Having never read the comics, we don't know how closely the last act follows the original, but the story as presented made short work of the last twenty minutes.  The conclusion hinged on a plot twist we can't imagine anyone not seeing far in advance.  Calling it a "twist" at all is something of stretch.  Let us say instead that one of the characters is finally shown something painfully obvious.

This movie exists so the Hulk can crush, smash, and break a number of alien creatures.  This is, of course, amusing in itself, and the movie delivers the action you'd expect.  It doesn't offer anything beyond this, but we didn't really expect it to.