Movie Review: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Days of Future Past is good as a movie, but a little disappointing as a summer blockbuster. This doesn't mean it's not worth seeing, but if you go in expecting a lot of action and effects, you might be surprised to find it's far more interested in its characters' motivations and emotional states. The movie handles this subject matter admirably; just know what you're getting into. There were a lot of action sequences I wanted - particularly involving Sentinels - that weren't in this movie.

There are still some fights, mind you, including a couple of post-apocalyptic battles that use multiple characters' abilities better than any prior X-Men film. These sequences are few and far between and aren't as long as I'd have liked, but it's great to finally see mutants coordinating their powers. Another sequence - easily the best scene in the movie - more or less negates the need for a Flash movie. Warner Bros. won't do it that well in a million years, so there's no point in them trying.

There. That was everything I wanted to say about Days of Future Past as a self-contained film. If it seems a little thin, it's because 90% of this movie is all about context: context with the movies that preceded it and context with the films set to continue the franchise. Context, context, context.

And context, in this situation, is going to require some spoilers. A lot of spoilers, in fact. If you don't want to know how this impacts the franchise, now would be a good time to stop reading.

I remember reading interviews where Bryan Singer made it clear that, while he might use this film to "adjust" a few details in X-Men 3, he wasn't going to do anything extreme like cut that film out of the series. Well... turns out he was lying.

Hell, this turned out to be a reboot in the vein of Abram's Star Trek. By the end of Days of Future Past, it's evident the events of X-Men 3 didn't take place.

Same goes for X-Men 2, X-Men, and The Wolverine. It's a little less clear whether X-Men Origins: Wolverine happened - there's a case to be made either way.

For what it's worth, First Class is still in continuity.

If all goes as planned, the next movie, Age of Apocalypse, is going to take place in the 80's, and it will likely include some of the team from the original X-Men movie recast with younger actors.

That raises an interesting question: would they have been better off skipping Days of Future Past and just rebooting off of First Class? Was it really necessary to establish that these films took place in different timelines in the same universe, as opposed to First Class and Age of Apocalypse representing a new series?

In some ways, Days of Future Past was a two hundred million dollar "fuck you" to Brett Ratner. I'd say that's a little excessive, but - honestly - it kind of feels appropriate.

The value of this movie isn't going to be clear until we see where the series goes from here. This felt less like a stand-alone movie than a re-piloting of a TV series. If they deliver on the revamped series potential, this will rightly be remembered as the movie that set us on the right track. Otherwise, it'll just be remembered for the Quicksilver scene.

God, that scene was awesome.

About that Batman/Superman Movie Title

As you almost certainly know by now, the sequel to Man of Steel is going to be called Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice.

As a general rule of thumb, I make fun of stupid things, particularly when they're done by WB and are focused around a DC comics property. But, in this case, I feel like everyone's mocking the title. I'm pretty sure I've seen a dozen different images and articles focused on the fact it sounds like a court case, and half as many playing up dish-detergent puns with the subtitle.

It's not that I think Warner Bros doesn't deserve the grief: clearly, they do. It's just... I think the internet has it covered. I thought instead I'd take a minute, look at the title and artwork, and try to figure out what they were thinking.

The most bizarre aspect of the title is the "V" in place of the more traditional "Vs." There are a few possibilities: that they felt "vs" was too indicative of wrestling matches or fighting games, or that someone was under the impression any amount of minimalism was preferable.

I don't think either of those are right, though: I think the real reason is embedded in the image. Both the bottom of Batman and Superman's symbols can be described as including the letter "v." The picture released with the name plays this up, dropping the "v" directly beneath the points of the Batman and Superman symbols.

This creates an interesting situation. You could actually argue that, ignoring the subtitle, the entire title is embedded in the image itself. In fact, you could do what DC comics did several years ago when they published a series called Superman/Batman.

You can tell at a glance the film borrowed the concept, though they've replaced that Bat-symbol with one lifted from Frank Miller's "The Dark Knight Returns". Regardless, the comic series used the overlaid symbols as the title itself. There's no additional text, because none is needed: the iconography is sufficient.

I suspect that was originally the plan for Batman V Superman. In other words, the symbol would have been the title, it would have been read as "Batman Versus Superman," and in rare occasions where it had to written out, it would appear as "Batman V Superman." But for all intents and purposes - movie posters, trailers, print ads, etc. - I suspect the words weren't meant to appear at all.

Enter the committee. Apparently, someone with influence at Warner Bros. thought they needed a subtitle. This, of course, completely destroys the entire point of building the title around a symbol in the first place. It certainly renders the "v" meaningless, because it can't stand on its own. The title must now be written out as "Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice", since anything else would imply the movie was simply called "Dawn of Justice."

My guess is that "Rise of the Justice League" and "Rise of Justice" were discussed at length. But "Rise of" is a little played out, so it's not too surprising they tried to find something with similar connotations but slightly different wording. And I'd be surprised if Warner Bros. wasn't still anxious about the name "Justice League" - they've always been a little embarrassed by their properties.

Thus we end up with "Dawn of Justice." It makes sense as a compromise, just as it sounds utterly idiotic when spoken aloud.

Overall, it feels like a situation where there were some interesting ideas that got warped into a convoluted title. Of course, it doesn't really matter: a title doesn't directly impact the quality of a movie. My real worry is that we're seeing the movie in a microcosm: that every level of the production will be bogged down by compromises and executive mismanagement.

Yup. That sounds like Warner Bros.

Either way, I'm sure I'll be there opening day for Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice. Assuming, of course, they don't change the title. They've still got plenty of time to do so.

Hell, they even have time to fire David Goyer and get a new writer, if they want to.

Movie Review: Godzilla

When the critical consensus of your giant monster movie is that the humans are boring, it means you've probably made a good giant monster movie.

This is one of those times I don't have a great deal to add to what everyone's saying. Yes, the movie spends too much time playing with the monsters' food. Yes, it would be better if they'd given us another hour of monsters fighting. Yes, I appreciate that would have cost an extra $150 million they didn't have.

All that means the movie isn't perfect. Fortunately, the title character pretty much is. If you want a compelling human drama, go see something else; if you want to watch Godzilla beat the snot out of a couple other monsters, well then... have I got some good news for you.

Like most in this genre, the majority of the movie is spent ramping up to the big fight. Monsters definitely make appearances, but there's far more exposition than attacks. I think we're meant to develop emotional attachments to these small, fleshy creatures, but it's just not going to happen.

Fortunately, these sections are somewhat salvaged by atmosphere and tone. The movie builds to each visual reveal, and the payoffs are more than worth the wait. Godzilla is, of course, awesome, but so are the two new monsters. They're called "MUTO's," which is - admittedly - a stupid name for kaiju, but they look absolutely awesome. More importantly, the monsters look as though Toho is in their DNA. They're all computer generated, but their designs evoke old monster movies. To put it another way, the designs could have been used in a suitmation production with minimal changes. As a result, they still feel like they're part of the same world.

As for Godzilla, it's all about his personality. And this is absolutely the King of Monsters at his best. This portrayal reminds me a great deal of Godzilla 2000: a sort of amalgamation of the 70's hero and the earlier, angry version.

It's good to see America redeem itself after the 98 debacle. Hopefully, this will make enough to justify a sequel with a larger budget. The movie could have been a half hour shorter without losing anything, but even at two hours, it was a lot of fun.

Movie Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

If I was feeling generous, I might describe Sony's management of the Spider-Man franchise as "uneven." But seeing as I'm not feeling particularly generous at this precise moment, I'll be more direct: this studio has been astonishingly stupid in how they've produced these movies. Sure, hiring Raimi was a good move, but the studio demanded Spider-Man constantly lose his mask and made some idiotic calls on which villains were included. It's kind of shocking that Spider-Man 1 and 2 turned out as well they did, in hindsight.

After the awful third movie, a decision was made to reboot the series. They did this, presumably, to cut ties with the tone of the first trilogy and free themselves to tell the Peter Parker/Gwen Stacy story in its entirety. When they announced it, most of us hated it. Spider-Man 3 was a mess, but there's no reason you can't fix a superhero franchise (look at how Fox has turned around the X-Men movies). However, Marc Webb did a solid job with The Amazing Spider-Man. Turning down Spider-Man's power level and transforming the world into something more SF than comic-book weren't how I'd have gone, but they seemed to work.

That brings us to the present. Now let's discuss The Amazing Spider-Man 2.

The first thing you need to understand is that it doesn't really exist. Oh, the movie title exists, and I certainly spent two and a half hours watching SOMETHING, but it was not a continuation of the 2012 film. Sure, the plot was connected and the actors were the same, but in every other meaningful aspect, this was a film in the aborted Raimi series. This was Spider-Man 4, and it was being directed by someone trying - and failing - to make it the way Raimi would have.

Spider-Man's strength, speed, and agility are back up to where they were in the original trilogy. Likewise, he's back to magically swinging around the city. And the campy undertones are back with a vengeance: half the time this feels like an 80's cartoon.

Raimi's movies were certainly campy at times, but it came off as a stylistic choice. And, above all else, he knew enough to take the villains seriously. The bad guys in this one are utterly ridiculous: until he gets his powers, Max Dillon is comic relief. Hell, there's a scene where he talks to himself to pretend Spider-Man is hanging out with him. His motivation for becoming a supervillain is even less subtle. It's painful to watch.

Fortunately, the fights are also closer to Raimi's movies. The battles with Electro, while relying heavily on CG, are extremely cool. Utterly absurd, but let's not quibble. Dillon's powers are bright and beautiful, and he tears up the city in true comic book supervillain fashion.

To be fair, there are also some solid character moments between Peter and Harry, as well as a few decent scenes between Peter and Gwen. But the plot is an incoherent mess. You'll see a lot of critics complain about there being too many villains, but that wasn't the issue. Hell, that's never the issue. The problem was that the characters - heroes and villains both - were poorly managed, and the plot wasn't thought out. Putting a couple villains in the same movie is fine - and, for the record, there were really only two villains who got more than a cameo. But the stories given to those villains were poorly constructed, and their motivations were weak. Worse yet, the same can be said for Spider-Man. You could cut everything having to do with Peter's dad from this movie and not lose a thing. And that, for all intents and purposes, was supposed to be half of what's driving him.

This was definitely a disappointment. I don't think it's as bad as Spider-Man 3, but it felt far too similar to that in both tone and quality.

Okay. So there's your review. I covered what worked and what didn't and made it pretty clear this is one that can wait for Netflix. There now. We're done. I mean. We're sort of done. Maybe.

.....

If you care one iota about spoilers and have any interest in seeing this movie, you should stop here. See, the thing is, I've got more to say, but it's got a lot to do with the last twenty minutes of the film, and, if you want to go in and make up your own mind without finding out how the damn thing ends, then this is enough.

No, really: I mean it.

Because....

             ...I have a few thoughts...

                                                 ...about the death of Gwen Stacy.

Maybe that's a bit of an overblown spoiler warning for something most of us expected after part one. The big reason I gave the reboot a pass was because they were clearly laying the foundation for this arc. After Spider-Man's origin, it's probably his most famous story. And, until I saw this movie, it looked like they were going to do it justice.

Instead, I suspect it sunk the film. It wasn't that the death scene itself was that bad (though I have a few complaints coming up), but rather the compromises it necessitated.

Here's the thing: if they'd followed the trajectory laid out in the first movie, this one would have been a tragedy. And tragedy, we all know, doesn't really sell in early summer. That could have been pretty impressive, though: a Spider-Man film with some real gravitas. Forget it, though: this is Sony.

Maybe I'm giving the director too much credit, but I find it hard to believe the same person who made the last installment would miss the mark this badly on his own. I'm betting the studio agreed to the resolution under the condition the movie stay fundamentally light and funny. I could certainly be wrong, but I can't find any other explanation for why they turned a movie about Gwen's death into a comedy.

For what it's worth, they gave her some heroic moments in the lead-up, and the actual moment she died had some force. Even knowing what was coming, it was a bit shocking to watch. But everything on either side was stupid.

Even worse, they wasted it. The fight with this iteration of the Green Goblin was already over, so we didn't get to see Peter's reaction to her murder. We never saw Spider-Man's rage. Instead, we cut to a montage of him morning for six months, before he realizes the world still needs Spider-Man. Then we're briefly back to supervillains and banter before the movie closes on a positive note.

This means we're not likely going to get much of a reaction from Peter. I'm sure he'll still be upset in the next movie, assuming Webb gets to continue making these, and he'll almost certainly beat the snot out of her killer in part three. But the six months they montaged over are the six months that matter. Without those, the story line, Gwen's character, and this entire reboot feel like a wasted opportunity.

This wasn't just the middle chapter in a larger arc. This was the movie they had to get right, the one that was supposed to deliver a phenomenal experience that sticks with us. Instead, they gave us a movie that belongs in continuity with Spider-Man 3 and nothing else.

Give Us Your Worst, Part 24: Daredevil

Daredevil opened on February 14th in 2003, which is when I saw it with my girlfriend (who was cool enough to go out to see a superhero flick on Valentine's Day). Jumping ahead eleven years, I just re-watched it for the first time since it opened. This time I did so alone - my wife still remembers the movie well enough to have decided it wasn't worth seeing a second time.

The surprising thing about Daredevil isn't that they got so much wrong; it's that, given how bad the movie was, they actually got quite a few things right. Murdock's relationship with his father was portrayed well, and Michael Clarke Duncan's Kingpin was fantastic. Likewise, I respect the movie for trying to go dark, though the results were... uneven.

These days, there have been so many good and bad superhero movies, it's difficult to find commonalities or good rules of thumb, but back in 2003 it was pretty easy. At the time, bad superhero movies were almost universally made by directors who didn't like or respect the material. In that respect, Daredevil broke new ground for bad comic book movies - I think it's pretty clear Mark Steven Johnson loved the source material; he just didn't understand it.

He certainly didn't understand the characters. Daredevil is too dark here, Elektra too light. Elektra is not a kind, gentle person burdened with a violent life. She's essentially a sociopath with a code. Also, she's not a pushover. Bullseye takes her out without effort in this movie: that pisses me off as much as anything else here.

The film's tone works against it more often than not. They were going for operatic noir, and I appreciate the attempt. Unfortunately, the result was mainly just boring. The characters were written far too inconsistently for any emotional connection to form, and the action was - like so many things in this movie - ambitious but not successful.

Unlike a lot of what I've seen for this series, Daredevil wasn't unwatchable, just really bad. Even Duncan's Kingpin can't make it worth sitting through, though he comes surprisingly close. In a movie filled with characters who acted nothing like their comic counterparts, he actually delivered something close to authentic. The only thing hindering him was the script, which failed to appreciate the resources and power the character is supposed to have at his disposal.

I've said otherwise in the past, but after re-watching them both I'm ready to admit this wasn't quite as bad as the Elektra spin-off. It's close, but this was slightly less boring. Slightly.

Movie Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Ever since Goldfinger hit screens in 1964, James Bond has been borderline superhuman. Over the years, we've seen a lot of superhero comics tropes integrated into Bond movies. And, of course, we've seen spy movies influence comics for decades.

"The Winter Soldier" might be the definitive word on that subject: it's a super spy thriller where the main characters are comic book superheroes. This is Roger Moore power-levels with a Daniel Craig tone - we've never gotten anything like that from the Bond franchise (or any other spy movie I can think of).

It is easily the darkest of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films to date. The movie's got plenty of laughs, but the tone is several shades darker than what we're used to from Marvel. We've seen these characters fighting for the fate of the world in several movies, but this is the first time it felt like they were battling for the planet's soul.

Some aspects of that do get a little preachy, but then this is Captain America we're talking about: he's supposed to be a little preachy.

From a fan perspective, I was extremely happy with the portrayal of the film's substantially large cast. In addition to Captain America and the movie's title character, it included Black Widow, Falcon, Nick Fury, and Maria Hill in substantial roles. There were several other characters given smaller parts, including Agent 13 and Batroc the Leaper.

And, yes: Batroc does, in fact, leap.

I've seen some people elevate this above The Avengers. I think that's a tad generous, but I think it's got a solid claim to the #2 spot in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Sorry Iron Man fans: those movies are still great, but The Winter Soldier comes together better as a whole.

Without delving too deeply into spoilers, I'll also add this movie has some pretty big ramifications for the connected universe. It'll be particularly interesting to see where Agents of SHIELD goes from here.

Check this out as soon as possible. It's a great addition to the Marvel line-up. By now, I hope I don't still need to remind you to stick around through the credits. Just in case - don't leave. Because, if you thought it was impressive they were putting Batroc the Leaper onscreen, you haven't seen anything yet.

Futures Market 2014

It's strange: in some ways, it doesn't feel like summer at all. But here we are, getting ready to check out the year's first Marvel summer blockbuster, so there can be little doubt. In their defense, with four major films coming out this summer, Marvel had little choice but to expand the season. And they're not alone in comic properties: the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle movie hits this summer, as does another Sin City. Add those six to the total number of DC Comics adaptations hitting the screen, and you've got...

Same number. Seriously, DC? Beaten by IDW and Dark Horse. Ouch.

Moving on. Like last year, I'm looking at the science fiction, fantasy, superhero, and animated movies coming out this summer. You know: all the geek stuff. I'll provide an estimate for how I think the movie will do on the Tomatometer. Feel free to come back at the end of the summer and mock me for being widely off mark.

Good times for all. Let's begin....

APRIL

4/4/14
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Projected Tomatometer: 90%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: It would take a squadron of Hydra troopers to keep me out

I'm cheating on the Tomatometer, of course. With the movie opening in a few days, there's more than enough reviews to establish where the meter is going to fall.

Everything about the movie looks good. My favorite aspects of the Marvel Cinematic Universe are the crossovers, and this is costarring Black Widow, who's been one of the best parts of Iron Man 2 and Avengers. Throw in the directors of some of the best half-hours of television of the last decade, and you've certainly got my attention.

But all that's icing: if the Disney/Marvel movies were half as good and twice as numerous, I'd still be there opening weekend, every time. Did I mention I'm a sucker for a connected superhero universe?

MAY

5/2/14
The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Projected Tomatometer: 85%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Almost nothing.

This is a tough one to predict - the last movie's only at 73%, but I suspect the spectacle alone will push this to at least the mid-80's. The franchise itself is in weird territory. The Raimi trilogy started a lot stronger than it finished, but most of us - myself included - didn't see the point in a reboot. But ASM brought me around on the idea. It approached the material from an entirely different tone and took another look at some of the quintessential elements of Peter Parker's story. I'm still not convinced it was the best direction for Sony to go with the property, but I have to admit it was a solid approach.

I'm hearing complaints from some that part two looks too busy - the massive cast of super-villains is reminding a handful of folks of the Schumacher Batman films and even the last Raimi Spider-Man. But I don't see it that way. The problem with the late 90's Batman movies wasn't that there too many antagonists; it's that the movies were poorly written and constructed. Same goes for Spider-Man 3.

I'm all for seeing Spider-Man take on as many members of his rogues gallery as they want to cram into the movie, so long as they don't screw it up. They're not going to screw this one up, right? RIGHT?

Hell, I'll probably still see it if they do.

5/9/14
Legends of Oz: Dorothy's Return
Projected Tomatometer: 14%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer above 90%

I'm not going to waste too much of my time stating the obvious: the trailers for this... thing... look abysmal. Like someone made a low-budget CG special for TV a decade ago.

It's still an adaptation of one of the most famous fantasy series ever made, so I'm mentioning it here. But I'd be shocked if I saw this in the theater. Or on DVD, for that matter.

5/16/14
Godzilla
Projected Tomatometer: 85%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good word of mouth and/or Tomatometer above 75%

It's easy to understand why people are skeptical at another American relaunch of the king of the monsters, but I really think they may have gotten this one right. The trailers have been a tad underwhelming so far, but only because they've held everything back. Most people still think Godzilla is the only monster in this movie, and I'm fairly certain that's not the case.

The tone and approach seem to be perfect. While I respect purists, Pacific Rim already demonstrated the obvious: that digital effects can work with this concept. While it's easy to imagine this being a major letdown, I'm cautiously optimistic.

5/23/14
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Projected Tomatometer: 78%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: A consensus that it's at least better than Origins: Wolverine and X-Men 3

Days of Future Past is an extremely ambitious piece to adapt. It could easily be fantastic. In fact, it's not at all a stretch to imagine this being the best movie of the summer. But it's also entirely plausible this could crash and burn.

The reason it's such a wildcard is the reason it should be a sure bet: director Bryan Singer. This is the guy who started this franchise with X-Men and X-Men 2, both stellar films. His return to the X-Men should be a slam dunk. EXCEPT. X-Men 2 came out more than ten years ago. And, in that time, Singer hasn't been as consistent.

But I'm certainly not about to write off the directer of X-Men 2. I'm just a little hesitant to get too excited. Fox already burned me with their take on The Dark Phoenix Saga: let's hope they knock DoFP out of the park.

5/30/14
Maleficent
Projected Tomatometer: 40%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: For me to be wrong

I want to believe this will be good. I want to believe that the trailer where they re-purposed "Once Upon a Dream" into a song between Maleficent and Aurora encapsulates the nightmarish feel of the film, and wasn't just something cobbled together by Disney's marketing department.

I really truly want to believe that.

And there's a chance it's true. That chance's name is Robert Stromberg. You haven't seen anything he's directed, because this is his first time in that role. If, by some random happenstance, he turns out to be a brilliant storyteller, this movie could be amazing.

But here's the thing: he was hired by the people who produced Alice in Wonderland and Oz: the Great and Powerful. Disney's live-action fairy tale department is very adept at producing movies that look interesting but are extremely disappointing in reality. Hopefully, this will break the pattern, but I'm not at all optimistic.

JUNE

6/2/14
Edge of Tomorrow
Projected Tomatometer: 80%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: 80% AND good word-of-mouth
I was all set to write this off as another generic Tom Cruise sci-fi movie until I realized who directed it. Doug Liman has managed to impress me in the past by making movies far better than I'd have expected. Edge of Tomorrow looks extremely generic, but the fact they got a very un-generic director gives me some hope.

6/13/14
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Projected Tomatometer: 80%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: 90% AND good word-of-mouth
I'm not the world's biggest fan of the first one. I think it's a solid movie, but nowhere near deserving of the honors it's had heaped upon it. It's a decent, if over-rated, CG movie.

That said, I'm excited to see they're taking some risks with the second. Allowing the lead to age represents a decision that has a lot of potential. I refuse to get my hopes too high for a DreamWorks movie that isn't part of the Kung Fu Panda series, but I'll admit I'm intrigued.

6/27/14
Transformers: Age of Extinction
Projected Tomatometer: 27%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Something worthwhile in the movie
I don't need to hear that this movie is good: I think that's probably too high a bar to expect Michael Bay to clear, anyway. What I'm looking for is something interesting. And I mean something I'll find interesting: that the dinobots are well realized, that that spaceship with a design echoing Unicron is cool, or that the movie does more than mangle CG robots together.

It's not that I'm above watching these - I actually still like the first. It's just that, in the absence of plot or character development, Bay's really just thrown the same effects at the screen and expected us not to notice. Be honest: can you really parse out the plots to parts 2 and 3? Or, for that matter, the effects? Watching either is fundamentally the same experience as watching the other. I expect something different if I'm going to pay to see another.


Snowpiercer
Projected Tomatometer: 88%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Not sure - still mulling this one over
The projection is another cheat - this one's been out for a while overseas, and at least a few critics have already cast their votes. If I understand the trailer, this is a post-apocalyptic sci-fi movie about a group of survivors on a train perpetually outrunning a global winter. From what I can tell, the conflict comes less from the weather than class warfare on the train.

I'm undecided on whether I'll see it. Aspects sound intriguing, but the summer is pretty packed as it is.


The Congress
Projected Tomatometer: 85%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Really good word-of-mouth

Because two science fiction films opening this weekend wasn't enough....

This looks like another take on the "Being John Malkovich" blueprint. This time, it's starring Robin Wright as herself and as a digital version of herself. The trailer is interesting, and I like the general concept. That said, it looks more like something to watch on Netflix than to see on the big screen.

Oh, and - once again - don't give me any credit if my "projection" is close: I'm pulling that 85% from the 20 critics who have already spoken.

JULY

7/11/14

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Projected Tomatometer: 80%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Decent reviews and strong recommendations

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was an unexpected pleasure. Director Rupert Wyatt spun what should have been a by-the-numbers prequel into a clever and emotional relaunch. If he was coming back, I'd be far more excited.

Not that Matt Reeves is a bad choice. I didn't exactly like Cloverfield, but it was competently made. Hopefully, he entered this project with a plan and put together something awesome. It's just a long way from a sure bet.

7/18/14

Jupiter Ascending

Projected Tomatometer: I don't know. Let's go with 75%?
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Forget the critics - I'll see it unless I hear it's awful

Most people who actually saw Cloud Atlas - and there aren't many of us - agree it was a cool movie that was, perhaps, a tad overambitious. Regardless, I like the Wachowskis best when they're cutting loose with effects and visuals. I guess that's another way of saying my favorite movie from them remains Speed Racer. God, I love that crazy movie.

Well, consider me excited, because this looks just as crazy. If the trailers are to be believed, we're getting an insane space opera that will make the Fifth Element look dull in comparison.

All that said, this is by the people who made the Matrix sequels, so some caution is appropriate. The Wachowskis are by no means perfectly consistent, but they're wildly inventive. And while their career certainly has its blemishes, anyone who tries to reduce their filmography to a Shyamalan-like downward trajectory is gravely mistaken. Yeah, their most critically successful movie was their first, but it wasn't actually their best. And, while Cloud Atlas was flawed, it was still a solid movie.

I've got high hopes for this one. If it's a fraction as much fun as I'm expecting, it'll be well worth the price of admission.

Planes: Fire and Rescue

Projected Tomatometer: 25%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Ha. Ha. HAHAHAHA!
This is a cheap cash grab based on the success Disney's had marketing Cars and Planes toys to young kids, but that's no reason to write it off: the Lego movie was no less a glorified commercial. But don't worry: there are plenty of other reasons to write this off, starting with the 26% Freshness rating of its predecessor and continuing on to its crappy trailer.

Hell, I'm being generous even including Disney's sequel to the poorly rated spin-off of Pixar's worst films on this list. But it is Disney animation, and that gives it a certain kind of geek cred. Not enough to see, mind you - not even close - but enough to mention it in passing.


7/25/14
Hercules
Projected Tomatometer: 30%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Is there time to completely rewrite and re-film it using a different director?

For those of you keeping track, this is the version of Hercules starring The Rock. It looks to be staying relatively true to the myth: judging from the trailers, he seems to be the son of Zeus, and he seems to have superpowers. Conceptually, that puts it ahead of "The Legend of Hercules," that movie released in January that tried to reboot the character in a gritty, realistic manner.

So, why then do I have no more faith in this than I had in that? Funny you should ask. This Hercules is directed by Brett Ratner.

Yeah. I think we're done here.

AUGUST

8/1/14

Guardians of the Galaxy

Projected Tomatometer: 70%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: I'm not seeing this movie unless it co-stars a badass talking raccoon with a gun. Ahem. See you opening day.

Let me get this out of the way up front: this movie might suck. I'm sorry, but there's a real chance. On the other hand, it could be the greatest movie ever made. And, in this case, the two preceding scenarios aren't mutually exclusive.

Rocket Raccoon. Groot. Gamora. Drax. Forget for a minute whether it's good or bad: the sheer fact this is coming out is astonishing in and of itself. These are four awesome heroes. Oh, and look at that: they've even got a pet human!

In a year of wild, crazy, ambitious summer movies, this is the wildest, craziest, and most ambitious of the bunch. I can't wait to check this out.

8/8/14

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Projected Tomatometer: 25%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: I'm looking for a Tomatometer north of 60 and/or some solid recommendations.
I'm not sure what to make of this yet. On one hand, for all the negative press this has been getting, the approach isn't entirely a bad one. This is going to be a slightly darker version than we're used to. Whether or not the filmmakers were even aware of the fact, that actually brings the property closer to its origins.

That said, "Michael Bay" isn't a name you want listed on the production credits, and Jonathan Liebesman's resume isn't reassuring.

If I had to guess, I'd say I probably won't be seeing this in August. But stranger things have happened. For example: Disney is making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie.


Lucy
Projected Tomatometer: 65%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Tomatometer above 85% and/or good word-of-mouth
This one almost slipped below the radar entirely. I just came across the trailer today and suddenly became interested. Lucy appears to be about a woman, played by Scarlett Johansson, who gets superpowers. She seems more interested in survival and revenge than helping others, though it's not clear whether this ends with her becoming a superhero, a god, or going Akira on everyone's ass. Whichever way it goes, in the hands of director Luc Besson, there's reason to anticipate a lot of fun. There'd be more reason if this were ten years ago, but - like I keep saying - I am an optimist

8/15/14
The Expendables 3
Projected Tomatometer: 55%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Good luck with that
I'm not a huge fan of this series, but I have been catching them as they appear on Netflix. That seems like a good strategy going forward: they're fun enough to kill an afternoon, but certainly not worth buying a movie ticket.

The villain this time is played by Mel Gibson. Probably a good casting call, since it's more or less impossible to take him seriously as a hero anymore.

8/22/14
Sin City: A Dame to Kill For
Projected Tomatometer: 50%
What it'll take to get me in the theater: Really good reviews and recommendations
Like most people old enough to do so in 2005, I saw Sin City in the theater. And, of course, I loved it. The movie was a new experience: a faithful adaptation of a comic book that retained the style and story. It was extremely cool. You know, for it's time.

But 2005 was a long time ago. And the thing that made Sin City great wasn't its characters or its plot: it was the look and tone. The issue is that look and tone aren't elements you need to build upon. Making another one isn't likely to offer a substantially different experience than you'd get re-watching the first.

Also, seeing something co-directed by Frank Miller isn't quite the selling point it was before he made The Spirit. Just saying.

I don't think this is going to be awful, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more than mediocre. If we're being completely honest, Rodriguez has always been more a cooler director than a good one, anyway. And that coolness factor doesn't really carry the same punch when the experience is nine years old.

But it's possible I'm being too dismissive. Maybe this will head into new territory and offer something unexpected. If I hear that's the case, I'll probably check this out and retract everything I'm typing here. But I wouldn't be typing it in the first place if I thought that was likely.