Stuff by Steve

My 30-ish body would like to publicly thank the genius that invented stretchy denim.

And by the way, what are you doing here reading about movies when you should be out watching one?

And now, in roughly chronological order, simply because that is how I copied-and-pasted their titles, I present my completely biased views on the upcoming movies of the Winter of 2007.

By the way, you will not see all of the upcoming movies listed here. If a movie is not in this list, it is because a) I was not aware of the movie, or b) I was not aware of anything remotely interesting about the movie. Both of these problems are easily rectifiable - get on it, movie producers! Start making better movies AND start sending me your advance scripts and daily reels.

Oh, and before we begin, some of these movies may have already come and gone from a theatre near you. Too bad. I write about what I want to write about. Now, read!

3:10 to Yuma
Yes, a new western! And one starring Russell Crowe (the venerable man’s man) and Christian Bale (the new man’s man). This one is apparently a remake of a solid film. Normally, that statement would be followed up with speculation on how this new version will stack up, but this time I don’t care. Even if it is mediocre (or at least better than “The Quick and the Dead”), I will still welcome the six-shooters, horses, and dust.

In the Shadow of the Moon
I am as excited about this documentary as much as I am about any fictional film this winter. Original footage of the Apollo moon missions will provide the frame around interviews with the remaining living astronauts from those heady days. Much of the mission footage was allegedly sitting in cans in NASA storerooms, never viewed by more than a few NASA staffers in its day. The movie has been receiving advanced rave reviews, despite having no connection to Tom Hanks.

Syndey White
I confess that I’ve already seen this one, but here’s the buzz: last-remaining-wholesome-teen-icon Amanda Bynes plays in a modern retelling of “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” (the setting is Greek row at some college, and thus the title should be read as “Sydney White and the Seven Dorks”). The male lead’s last name is “Prince,” and the female antagonist’s last name is “Witchburn.” That should be all you need to know.

The Kingdom
Jennifer Garner’s involvement in this spy-vs-terrorist movie draws parallels in my mind to television’s “Alias.” I would expect a fairly straightforward plot, lots of action, and some sort of overly-simplified political message. While I’m not a big fan of Jamie Foxx (obviously a stage pseudonym, which, in this case, I take as an indication of grandiose narcissism), I am one of Chris Cooper (”Bourne” series, “Breach”). Also, Jason Bateman jumps in the fray, apparently looking for a change from his straight-up comedy roles (although he plays the comic relief, so not too much of a change, evidently).

Elizabeth: The Golden Age
I skipped the first one mostly because, well, it looked boring. However, watching the scenes in the trailer of the Spanish Armada sailing on England took my breath away. I’m not sure about the whole “I am woman” theme, and we will not likely see much ship-on-ship action (you will notice that it’s not titled “England vs. Spain - RAW!”). Maybe a rental?

Michael Clayton
I know very little about this, except that it stars George “Getting Better With Age” Clooney and involves some sort of suspense theme. Good enough for me, really. Well, perhaps I shouldn’t be too hasty - that’s what I said about “Solaris.”

Gone Baby Gone
Written by the same person as “Mystic River,” this film strikes the same thought-provoking tone. Also noteworthy is that Ben Affleck has finally stepped behind the camera where we can truly appreciate him. What I’m saying, in case you have missed my subtle barb, is that he’s bound to be a better director than he is an actor. The job also seems to suit his apparently tremendous ego. What does Jennifer Garner see in him? Maybe he’s better on stage (he still does play acting, interestingly enough).

We Own the Night
No, this is not the latest in a spate of crappy vampire movies. It’s a story of two brothers; one a cop, the other the Mafia - well, you can see where it will probably lead. Normally, I don’t go for such depressing subject matter, but the trailers show a great chemistry between Mark Wahlberg and Joaquin Phoenix. Maybe I’ll rent it.

American Gangster
Again, not my normal choice of happy-go-lucky flicks, but seriously, Denzel Washington is amazing. Sadly for my love of Washington’s acting talent, I will likely skip this one for its violation of my philosophy of escapism as the sole purpose of film. Now, replace the word “Gangster” with “Gladiator” in the title and I might change my mind.

Hitman
The problem with basing a movie on a video game is that most video game backstories are not exactly Shakespeare. Compound that with the strange phenomenon that the movie’s script is usually dumber than the game’s own story and you have a recipe for such gems as “Tomb Raider,” “Doom,” and, well, all of them. Will this one be any different? Let’s see: Obscure story, D-list actor, no other notable names attached to the project… And it just looks really, really dumb.

Beowulf
The people that brought us “The Polar Express” bring another motion-capture animation project in the form of the old Danish legend. On the “pro” side: I’ve always wanted to see Beowulf envisioned on the big screen. On the “con:” the animation still looks as crappy as it did in “The Polar Express.” It’s like there are only a few dozen good animators in the world, and for some reason they all work at Pixar.

Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem
I saw the trailer in the theatre recently and I found myself in a giddy mood. Yes, yes, it will be a steaming pile of crap, but I am hoping to see the return of some of the classic treatment of aliens and predators that would bring a bit of dignity back to two of history’s most famous movie monsters. This time, there are no male-only prison colonies, no improbable sub-arctic pyramids, and no weird philosophy featuring Sigorney Weaver. Just a simple modern day village filled with modern day villagers about to be eaten.

Bee Movie
Jerry Seinfeld, who wrote the movie and voices the main character, has been raving about how “different” this movie will be from other animated films. I’m not seeing it, and I’m expecting something more along the line of a crappy version of “A Bug’s Life” - oh wait, that would be “Antz.”

Enchanted
Disney takes a jab at itself, which I appreciate. I think self-deprecating humour is actually quite endearing when it comes from a corporation. Anyway, the story is a fairy tale along the lines of the Disney classics - “Snow White,” “Cinderella,” “Sleeping Beauty” - that breaks into the real world, transforming from an animated tale to a live-action romp. The shtick is that all the fanciful things that one would take for granted in a fairy tale (people breaking into song, animal sidekicks, the works) are exposed as ridiculous when viewed through the goggles of reality. Looks funny and cute, just like a Disney movie should.

I Am Legend
Not sure what this is about at all, except that it stars Will Smith and is something about him being the Last Man On Earth (oh, and apparently he’s not alone). Cryptic, and cool. Hopefully, he will stick to acting and leave the theme song to someone else.

National Treasure: Book of Secrets
I loved the original National Treasure - it was a fun, adventurous romp that gave us a tiny taste of that Indy flavour we all love, in a nice, high-gloss format (unlike Richard Chamberlain in “King Solomon’s Mines,” which was still fun but for an entirely different reason). Thus, I will forgive this sequel its “Harry Potter”-esque title and go to see this on its opening weekend. Why? Because there is so much crap in the theatre these days, and I am desperately clinging to any reasonably-executed entertainment. Some people are referring to this up-and-coming movie franchise as “Da Vinci Code”-lite. Frankly, that’s what I thought “The Da Vinci Code” should have been. I will bet even money that this becomes a ride at Disneyland in a year.

In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale
I would repeat all my videogame-turned-movie rants from “Hitman,” but this one has Jason Statham and Ray Liotta on its side. Okay, so replace “D-list” with “B-list” and you get the picture. Oh well, Statham and Liotta had a good run. It was nice knowing you guys! Seriously, if you don’t have enhanced lips and are married to Brad Pitt, how can you come back from something that will be this bad? Well, I guess even The Rock found work after “Doom.”

Untitled J.J. Abrams Project
1-18-08 (USA) (promotional title)
Cheese (USA) (fake working title)
Clover (USA) (fake working title)
Cloverfield (USA) (fake working title)
Slusho (USA) (fake working title)
Okay, so coolest viral marketing scheme ever. First, produce hit TV shows (”Lost,” “Alias”) and become world-renown. Then, make a monster movie in secret. Then, release a kick-butt teaser trailer without revealing anything at all significant about the movie, including the title. Okay, maybe some people don’t care, but I think J.J. Abrams is onto something here. All we know is that something bad happens to New York City. Just like we like it.

Rambo
This movie should not be confused with “Rambo: First Blood Part II.” I know that’s what you were all thinking. Although, you were also probably thinking, “Why in H-E-double-hockeysticks is 61-year-old Stallone is making another Rambo movie?” Besides the tears I shed for humanity at being subject to this movie franchise again, I also weep for the absence of Richard Crenna, and for the appearance of more bows, arrows, and machetes wielded by our notorious hero.

Vantage Point
It’s about time Dennis Quaid was in another movie. Hard to say if this will be good, but it certainly looks interesting: lots of famous actor faces and a suspenseful premise are a good combination, I say. Plus, I love a good conspiracy movie (although, not a good conspiracy, I’ve learned). The premise is a tasty one: An assassination is investigated from different people’s points of view (or, “vantage points,” if you will). Thus, the plot will be unravelled in an orderly and chair-gripping manner. Plus, as we learned from the much-too-informative trailer, the assassination isn’t what it appears to be. Good grief, I can barely sit still already!

10,000 B.C.
Roland Emmerich (”The Day After Tomorrow,” “Independence Day”) is busy crafting a big-budget movie about a mammoth hunter. On the one hand, I’m all, “Oooooo!” On the other hand, I’m like, “What the…?” And yes, that’s all I have to say about that.

I experienced two emotions upon leaving the theatre from seeing “The Bourne Ultimatum.” One is of relief to have finally watched a movie in a theatre this summer without feeling let down, and the other is of exhilaration that such relief was possible because the movie was so good. Unlike the other blockbusters I have seen this summer, I found myself enthralled in a way that drew me into the screen like no other movie since “The Bourne Supremacy.” And, possibly most crucially, I was finally able to gratify that “one more scene of Bourne” craving that the first two movies left me with. Not everything was all pizza and ice cream, however. I did notice that the story and tone were very similar to the second film, giving a sense of “seen it all before.” This was not helped by the cinematography. Bearing the mark of both the same director and the director of photography of the second film, I was subject to a plethora of shaky camera work. This was a blessing and a curse; it gave the movie an ever-present sense of urgency, and each action scene was highly exciting, but I could never stop to admire the wondrous martial arts marvel that is Jason Bourne. Maybe this was okay, since Bourne was no longer the conscience-less killing machine that he used to be, and the gritty, raw film work seemed to reflect the life-or-death struggle that he was constantly embroiled in. Or perhaps this was all some secret ploy to get us to buy the DVD so that we can watch those scenes over again. There were other things I did not like, as well, such as a few moments in the story that seemed too contrived and corny for such a serious story. I would like to mention that whomever cast Albert Finney into this movie as the doctor should have been smarter than that, as he bears more than a small resemblance to Brian Cox, who portrayed a prominent character to his death in the first two movies. I felt this caused a certain amount of confusion initially. Having said that, bringing in David Strathairn as the CIA Deputy Director was a good move. I think he saved what could have been a weakly written character. Everyone else played well off of each other, and the brooding performance by Matt Damon was deftly dealt. Overall, the movie was a perfect blend of overt action and subtle character play. Watching Bourne dance through each harrowing situation by staying two steps ahead of his pursuers was an edge-of-my-seat affair, while the quiet moments of delightfully awkward silence that seemed to surround Bourne spoke volumes without a word of dialogue. The ending, arguably the most important part of the story since it wrapped up both the movie and the series, was satisfying. Bourne’s secret was finally revealed (although not without its own twist) and his struggle was brought to a climactic conclusion in a manner consistent with his new-found character without letting me feel ripped off. The story seemed to appropriately come full circle in many respects with certain characters, scenes, and bits of dialogue echoing the roller coaster that Bourne has been on these past few years. I have to say that very few movies of late offer any of that nail-biting spy intrigue that made this one great.

It has been a while since I have heard as many love-it/hate-it sentiments for a movie as I have with Spider-Man 3. I found it curious that opinions were quick to break forth among my circle of friends, with equal numbers literally exclaiming how much they loved or hated the movie. Perhaps it is because this was the first major show of the season and anticipation was sky-high from the success of the first movies and the blandness of the winter fare. Some suffered the disappointment that followed dashed expectations, and others were just happy to have a movie to watch that didn’t suck. I have taken a more moderate position; I found the film to be flawed but enjoyable. The acting was fine, as it has been, and the effects were the same top-notch eye candy. The mediocrity was in the story. I predicted this at the end of the second film, when we saw the forlorn-looking M.J. watching her love swing off into the distance to pursue a life of crime-fighting without her. The Raimi brothers, who wrote the story, knew they needed to get back the unattainable nature of the girl, so when it all happened, it felt a bit contrived. Also, there seemed to be a few too many villains - six, to be precise (count with me: New Goblin, Sandman, Venom, strange creature from space, black-suited Spider-Man, and Peter Parker’s internal struggle). Throw in the complication of some villains being victims themselves, others changing sides, and other villains being part of one character, then part of another, and then a character all in itself, and you have a hard time knowing who to boo. But, speaking of Peter’s internal struggle, I think that that was the weakest part. The debate of what makes a true hero is a worthwhile one, but not for three movies in a row. The script desperately needed a new motivation, but it didn’t get one. Thus, except for the numerous villains, I felt like I had seen it all before. Still, a bad Spider-Man movie is still a good movie, in my opinion. I found the action sequences thrilling and pace deft. Even though the drama was contrived in concept, it was quite accessible in execution - you can always relate to Spider-Man, for some reason. And that’s where the charm is at.

Spider-Man 3
First in our long list of “three-quels,” we have the cautiously anticipated next episode of the recent “Spider-Man” series. Like many others, I have quite a few questions. Does Harry finally turn completely to the Dark Side? Do Peter and Mary Jane stand a chance together? Will Uncle Ben look older even though he’s just a figment of Peter’s imagination? And, most importantly, will the movie be any good? The danger is that the awe has worn off - we are no longer amazed by the Spider-Man. Hopefully, writer/director Sam Raimi can pull together a solid story to compensate for the loss of novelty. At the very least, we can expect the usual superhero angst as Peter Parker is torn between being a hero and, well, being something else.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End
Popular opinion seems to show that this three-quel is the one audiences are most looking forward to. I think Disney is counting on this, and they have cleverly set the release date exactly three weeks after “Spider-Man 3.” As you may know, the blockbuster-makers gauge their own success by the ticket take at the end of the day (or opening weekend, or opening week, or number of consecutive weeks as the highest grossing movie, etc.). Perhaps the effort that they put into winning the box office sales will result in a good movie at the same time. Or perhaps not. Either way, seeing Keith Richards on the big screen will be interesting (and the smart money says “scary,” too, although I suppose they could make him look like anything these days).

Shrek the Third
You know, I wasn’t fond of the first “Shrek,” but I warmed up to the second one. The opposite of “Spider-Man,” I didn’t really jive with the gimmicks of the fairy tale spoof (yes, it was funny, but just a bit off-putting). The second movie had an engaging story that was interesting to watch, and I found the chemistry between Mike Meyers and Eddie Murphy to be more mature and substantive. With this third installment, I could take it or leave it, but I do expect to be pleased with it. I just hope they don’t put Simon Cowell back in the DVD extras. That was awful. What? It was just me?

Ocean’s Thirteen
Yes, another three-quel. The writers seem to have smartened up and solidified the trio of Clooney, Pitt, and Damon, which was the best part of Part 2. I see Damon’s character becoming more mature, which could backfire, since his boyish charm was the clincher. As with the previously mentioned movies, this one follows a sequel that I considered to have surpassed its original. Let’s talk about that for a minute - here we have four movie franchises that have defied the “sequel-itis” phenomenon (the trend of the second movie being a terrible, rehashed version of the first). Not so with these, as they all seemed to come of age with the second go-around. While I am happy to have had such splendid movie-going experiences, I believe we are in dangerous territory. It used to be fine when audiences expected sequels to be bad, but the aforementioned audiences have been pampered lately. My honest fear is that the momentum will falter and dash our high expectations four times over. If the new Star Wars is any indication, my fear will be realized.

The Bourne Ultimatum
Personally, this is the three-quel that I am most anticipating this summer. I felt that the first two movies were both great, being different enough that they could not be directly compared (or criticized), and being similar enough that they shared the same thinking-man’s action motif. I fully expect that this tertiary effort (how’s that for sagacious turgidity?) to be as thrilling, exciting, and just plain entertaining as the others. Plus, there was a time when I was told that I bore a resemblance to Matt Damon. Did I ever grace you with the story about that summer day at Universal Studios in Hollywood?

Rush Hour 3
Okay, for our last three-quel we have one more movie that follows a sequel that was not markedly worse than the first. Perhaps I am given this impression because of the dubious nature of comedies (yes, it’s also an action flick) to defy critical inspection. I believe that comedies tend to be “above the law” in regards to criticism, simply because they don’t conform to regular dramatic rules. This is why we may never see a comedy win Best Picture at the Oscars. Anyway, more Jackie Chan is always a good thing, as is Chris Tucker (but with him, only a little more). Chan’s only got a few years left, so here’s hoping he makes them count.

Live Free or Die Hard
Okay, now we are getting ridiculous. Can I call this one a “four-quel?” I enjoyed the Die Hard series, but the concept is getting old. Heck, Bruce Willis is getting old (he did the other three back in the day when sequels sucked and the third movie was better). He has even stated that this is the last one, since his body couldn’t hack any more of those stunts. But don’t discount computer graphics - the day is coming that the actors sign away their likenesses to avoid having to act on screen. How else are they going to film Indiana Jones IV?

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
Okay, even though this one has “four” in the title, don’t let that confuse you. This one is a pure #2 sequel. And a better movie it should be, since the topping the first one will be no difficult challenge. Again, good for movie-goers in the short term, bad in the long term. Although, I shouldn’t predict success too hastily; I’m just not sure that the overall concept is strong enough to turn out a good movie. Actually, it is, which was proved by “The Incredibles” (like Fantastic Four, it had a strong hero, a stretchy hero, a fast hero, and an invisible hero that could generate force fields). Perhaps the weakness lies with who is actually making the film. Hmmm, I might be on to something there. Oh, and be prepared to see Jessica Alba’s new, horrifically emaciated, anorexic body.

Alien vs. Predator: AVP2
All I can say is, yay! Bring on the cheesy, badly-acted monster movie sequel! In this case being better or worse than the original doesn’t matter too much. It still matters a little bit, though - anyone who has seen Alien Resurrection (#4 in its series) can attest that that one ruined it for all the rest of the bad monster movies out there. I’m not sure where they have left to go with the plot, however. I expect little attention will be paid to the canon set out by the first Alien and Predator movies in favour of a highly derivative story that relies heavily on a contrived shocking premise and miles of dark corridors. With any luck they will use the story from the much-adored-by-nerds graphic novel, but I doubt that anyone calling the shots in here is looking to produce anything so high-concept.

Transformers
Okay, what’s better than “Yay?” How about, woohoo!! I have loved the Transformers from the original poorly drawn Saturday morning cartoons. Now we have a live action version, and it’s not “Robot Jocks.” The trailers make it look amazing, but the red flag is Michael Bay (”Bad Boys I & II,” “Armageddon,” “Pearl Harbor”). On the plus side, since we’re name dropping, Peter Cullen voices Optimus Prime, as he did back in the day. Shia LaBeouf (who?) also stars, which will give everyone a chance to see the relatively-unknown-but-much-talked-about actor that is slated to appear prominently in “Indiana Jones IV” (next to an all-digital Harrison Ford). More trivia: the by-line, “Their War. Our World,” was originally from the similarly-themed “AVP: Alien vs. Predator,” until they changed it to “Whoever wins…we lose.”

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Which one is this again? Five? I have not seen any of the others; my impression is that of pulp film - cheap and insubstantial. Apparently they are pretty good, but I’ve got a limit to the amount of fantasy-themed movies I can take in, and “Pan’s Labyrinth” is still on my list. Actually, so is “Reign of Fire.”

The Simpsons Movie
You know, I appreciate “The Simpsons” and what the show has done for irreverent comedy, but after 19 seasons do we really need a movie? Or, perhaps, it’s about time. I can’t decide. I was about to say that this is one of the few summer blockbusters that will not be a sequel, but I’ve changed my mind. This one takes the cake as being the four-hundred-and-something-th entry in “The Simpsons” catalogue.

Nancy Drew
Last-but-not-least, we have a modern day film version of the beloved series of children’s mystery novels. It’s been a long time since Shaun Cassidy and Parker Stevenson gave us “The Hardy Boys” on TV. If they can keep the innocence of the post-wartime Nancy Drew stories by H.S. Adams, I’ll be happy. Well, doubly happy, because I love a good mystery.

Looking for “Lucky You,” “The Hoax,” and “TMNT?” They got tagged and bagged in my Winter Movie Preview 2007.

Sky High (Good)
The non-super son of superhero parents endures his first experiences at a high school for super-teenagers, and finds that it is just as horrifying as real high-school.
This is a Disney movie; clean and formulaic, and not exactly ground-breaking. That said, I enjoyed it - there were quite a few memorable moments, and it was fairly interesting despite the typical lameness that comes with good, clean formula. The best part was Kurt Russell’s dry, satirical take on the great all-American hero. Classic.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (Good)
An average joe starts dating a woman who is also a superhero. He discovers this, and the fact that she is “clingy,” only after he attempts to break up with her.
Continuing the trend of superhero goodness, a socially-dysfunctional superheroine (Uma Thurman) attempts to exact revenge on her average ex-boyfriend (Luke Wilson). I liked the idea of a superhero that suffered from low self-esteem. There’s a fair amount of character development, which is nice for a fluffy movie. The thing is, it wasn’t great, just good. But still, good isn’t bad.

Before Sunset (Crap)
A man and woman who once shared an intimate-yet-fleeting moment meet by chance years later and consider the possibility of taking their fling to the next level.
A sequel to “Before Sunrise ,” this is a high-concept, artsy film. It seemed odd at first but drew me in with its intimate tone and fluid style. Shot almost entirely in “real time,” I watched the curious interplay of two people who found themselves awkwardly attracted to each other while they wandered some quaint Paris streets. Too bad the guy was married… to another woman. No matter how charming a film, when the protagonist is a jerk, it completely ruins it for me.

Lady in the Water (Good)
A fairy tale about a nymph who lives in a swimming pool whose destiny is to save mankind.
Based on an actually family bedtime story by writer/director M. Night Shyamalan, this movie was full of the same creepy style you found in “The Village,” “Signs,” and “Sixth Sense.” Yet, the movie wasn’t really that creepy, but rather more of a unique fantasy story that happened to have strange creatures in it. Still, it was missing that compelling Lord-of-the-Rings essence that makes you want to change your life after watching a movie. Still, time well wasted.

Stick It (Good)
A rebellious gymnast attempts a comeback while fighting against the stigma that surrounds her.
Chick Alert: this is one of Danielle’s new favourites. I kinda liked it too. It was clean, stars Jeff Bridges, and I have to say that gymnastics blows my mind. It reminded me of an edgier, more innocent version of “Bring It On.” To its credit, I have not tired of it even after Danielle’s repeated viewings of the DVD.

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The second installment of the recent “Pirates of the Caribbean” series of feature films. This week: Government corruption targets Will and Elizabeth right before their wedding ceremony and the mythical lord-of-the-sea Davy Jones tracks down Jack Sparrow to settle some old business.

The thing I like the most about the recent “Pirates” series is the style; it seems to perfectly blend the enchantment of Disney’s Magic Kingdom attraction with big-budget Hollywood production values. A large part of that is owed to Johnny Depp who, with his rendition of the quirky pirate Jack Sparrow, singlehandedly provides the heart of the “Pirates” mythos on the screen. So much so, in fact, that they have added animatronic likenesses of Depp (pretty convincing ones, too) to the “Pirates” ride in Disneyland (et al). I find this amusing, considering that Orlando Bloom is allegedly the hunk. Anyway, style alone cannot hold a movie together. That is unfortunate, since this movie really needed something to hold it together. I found the whole thing to be just a bit too… much. Too over-the-top, too many bad guys, too many close calls, too many love triangles, and too many cliffhangers. Regarding the latter point, the ending is of the infuriating “to-be-continued” variety, where all of a sudden the credits roll and leave a great many questions unanswered. Be advised to prepare yourself for that empty, unresolved feeling, followed right after by treacherous thoughts for whomever put the release date of the next movie in May 2007. As for love triangles, I found it odd that the writers chose the course they did in this matter (I’ll leave out the details to spare the people who like surprises). I understand the need for sexual tension - every good movie about swashbuckling scoundrels needs a healthy dose of it (I call it the “Han Solo Rule”). And with Will and Elizabeth finally together, the original love interest is neatly tied up. So, what to do? They went the wrong way, in my opinion; it just seemed implausible. But what do I know about the heart of a woman? Having said all of that, almost everything else about this movie was a joy to watch. The characters were interesting enough and the computer-generated creatures were very believable. I found Davy Jones to be a bit on the un-evil side, though, probably due to his lisp. I just can’t take a guy (er, cephalopod) seriously who flutters his lips and slurs his “S” sounds. The Kraken, on the other hand, was quite fearsome, and I look forward to more undersea terror in the summer (Oooh, I just thought of a great idea for a monster movie!). Speaking of perils, the writers did a great job of coming up with unique and intriguing predicaments for the main characters. The story kept my attention throughout, and it was involved enough that I had to watch it a few times to catch everything. Some plot twists seemed a bit inexplicable, but I am giving the writers the benefit of the doubt that these loose ends will be tied up in the next movie. Overall, this was an enjoyable adventure romp and a more-or-less worthy sequel to boot (ha ha). I liked it enough to buy the DVD at full price, and it ended up being my favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:

Superman Returns
X-Men: The Last Stand

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The Superman mythos is revisited with a new movie that loosely ties into the early ’80s versions. This week: Superman returns from a visit to the remains of his home planet, only to find that things have changed between him and Lois Lane. One thing that hasn’t changed: Lex Luthor is still an egomaniacal butt-munch.

Plans for this movie go back years. I think it all started when the casting director for “Superman” discovered Christopher Reeve in 1977. They said, “We’ll never find anyone who looks more like Superman than this guy. Let’s clone him!” Thus, 28 years later, Brendan Routh gets the part, since he looks exactly like Christopher Reeve. It’s creepy. Seriously, this movie has a bit of a story behind it, starting with how Nicholas Cage was once considered for the part (dodged a speeding bullet there, if you ask me) and ending with how Warner Bros. called up director Bryan Singer and asked him to ditch X-Men in favour of what is probably North America’s best known popular legend. I bet he didn’t think twice. And so, with the first two X-Men movies under his belt, Mr. Singer proceeded to weave a masterpiece. Almost. Maybe it was nerves, maybe it was corporate pressure, or maybe he just liked it this way, but I felt that he missed the mark in his portrayal of “The Man of Steel.” I know many will disagree, especially since the production values in the movie were so high. Cinematically, everything was tight. The sweeping camera shots were all perfectly done, giving a sense of awe to Superman as he soared over the earth. In fact, this is the first time that I can say that I felt that someone was flying around in a blue-and-red suit, and they just happened to catch it on film. Every time Superman took off, it was a breathtaking moment. The plot was fine, as well, although pretty standard fare. And both Brendan Routh and Kevin Spacey were spot-on (although, in deference to the more important gripes I have, I will not mention how much I had to repress my gag reflex whenever Kate Bosworth came on scene - whoops, too late). What was my beef, you ask? It came down to who Superman was as a person. As with most superhero movies these days, Superman was portrayed as having a human side. This is all well and good, as the internal struggles of one who should have no worldly problems are superb dramatic fuel. However, Superman is the ultimate boy scout, and introducing the potential of an illegitimate child just rubbed me the wrong way. Call me provincial, but the one character that should have no hint of a moral flaw is Superman. Plus, it was super-cheesy (ha ha). I have long believed that the addition of cute kids to an adult storyline is a sign of desperation to appeal to an audience when you suspect that your regular material may not do the job. There might be something there, too, since there was no chemistry between Superman and Lois Lane, and the much needed comedy afforded by Clark Kent’s bumbling was nowhere to be seen (to be clear, he bumbled, but it just wasn’t very funny). I enjoyed the movie overall, but that angelic-chorus moment was missing where I should have felt that this was the best movie ever. I’d like to see it again, perhaps to discover that my opinion has mellowed somewhat, but for now it ended up being my least favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
X-Men: The Last Stand

It’s finally time to write my “big three” summer blockbuster reviews: “Pirates,” “Superman,” and “X-Men.” I have procrastinated doing this, being a bit daunted by the task of summarizing three major films. But they are out on DVD now and if I don’t get on it, well, it will only further entrench my reputation of lameness.

For these three movies I will write each review individually, but be sure to catch all of them for the big picture (ha ha).

Synopsis: The third installment of the recent X-Men series of feature films. This week: trouble brews as Magneto continues his campaign against humans, but the X-Men have bigger problems as Jean Gray mysteriously reappears, not quite herself.

X-Men has been a fine series of films, with the second movie breaking the sequel stereotype and surpassing the first in quality and depth. This third movie is easily the worst of the lot, but in the same way that orange creme chocolates aren’t as good as hazelnut centres or coffee cremes. I still like them, but they aren’t my favourite. The truth is, it could have been much, much worse. See, Bryan Singer, the writer/director of the first two movies, was sitting in his cabana one day reading his mail. He thought to himself, “Let’s see here, we’ve got a pre-pre-pre-production overview of the new X-Men movie script. I’ll have to give that a look-see later while getting my knee-cap massage from my incredibly well-paid house staff… Wait a minute, what’s this? A letter from Warner Bros.? They want me to direct Superman Returns?!!?” At this point he cancelled his knee-cap massage, called every single one of his production staff from the first two X-Men movies, and moved down the block to the WB studio backlot. The new director did a good job, but you could tell that the magic was gone. The movie didn’t seem to have the same charm or wit, and the pacing and plausibility started edging into “Batman and Robin” territory. I liked that the story was more serious than the last two (kind of an “Empire Strikes Back” thing, I suppose), but while it should have been psychologically disturbing, it was far more disturbing that it played out like an old light-hearted episode of “The A-Team.” I mean, a lot of people died in this film, including one or two principle characters, and everyone else who remained alive seemed to shrug it all off like they had discovered their milk had just expired but-you-know-they-were-on-their-way-to-the-store-anyway. Maybe the problem was the dialogue, which was almost non-existent; it was an action film through and through, and as such it rarely paused for any much-needed introspection. There were many high points, however. I was pleasantly surprised with how well Kelsey Grammer portrayed Beast. Things could have gone either way on that one, and it really worked out for the better. We were introduced to several new mutants, although far too little time was spent on anyone for there to be any real character development. The special effects were incredible, and for maybe the first time I felt that the “powers” of these super-heroes and super-villains were tangibly portrayed. I think the best part of the movie was in the form of the ethical questions it raised surrounding the mutant “cure” that formed the baseline for the story. If you chose, you could let your mind delve into the issues that were presented, and make any comparisons to real-life ethical debates that permeate our culture today. This alone created the most value in the movie, in my opinion. Otherwise, it was just an okay action flick with pretty people and Kelsey Grammer in it, and my second favourite of the “big three” summer blockbusters in 2006.

See also:

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest
Superman Returns

Synopsis: A professional assassin discovers that even he can feel burned-out and befriends a middle-class businessman in the process.

From the synopsis above, you’d think that I watched “The Whole 9 Yards.” Oh, if it were only so. There were so many things that I enjoyed about this movie and so many things that I found completely appalling. As with “9 Yards,” the premise is prime fodder for a dark-ish comedy about the troubles of a hit man who learns that he is past his peak. The thing is, pulling off a dark comedy requires a deft, subtle hand that understands the sensitivity of the audience and also knows how to write smart slapstick. “Matador” was a haphazard affair that, while sometimes funny (and I admit that it was sometimes funny), kept foisting unwieldy amounts of low-brow jokes on the audience like a salesman pushing the high-commission products. Still, the film had some good ideas; it really tried to develop some depth to its characters, and in many ways did a good job. But to truly accomplish this task, it required a backdrop a lot less absurd and disturbing. I appreciated the introspective interplay between the two main characters - it was genuinely moving to see their friendship develop - but I couldn’t appreciate it as fully as I wanted due to the constant desire to jump in the shower to wash the icky feeling off. And this was the main problem. I understand that foul language (and other forms of obscenity) can add levity to a situation when used deftly. When scene after scene of cursing and Pierce Brosnan boinking start pouring out of the screen and all over my good time, I get cranky. Keeping it light and, dare I say, innocent is what makes depressing subject matter work for laughs, and this movie was neither light nor innocent.

Invincible (Great)
Philadelphia bartender Vince Papale tries out for the local NFL team. Based on a true story.
The moody 1970’s-era Philadelphia setting provided the perfect backdrop for an inspirational film that can be enjoyed by everyone, sports fan or not. An understated performance from Mark Wahlberg proved to be right on the money. And it was pretty clean, too. Loved this movie.

Click (Good)
A middle-aged man receives a unique gift - a universal remote control that literally “controls his universe.”
Adam Sandler gets a universal remote that does some amazing things - mutes the dog, fast forwards through fights with his wife, skips to his next promotion. However, he quickly realizes that fast-forwarding his life has dire consequences. It’s really an above-average Scrooge tale, just not at Christmas (you know, the kind where a guy has his priorities screwed up and need a little divine help to figure things out).

The Break-Up (Crap)
Due to a misunderstanding, a man and a woman attempt to save their marriage by treating the other badly.
You know that uncomfortable feeling you have when you get caught in the middle of a relationship fight that isn’t yours? Now imagine having that feeling for an hour and five minutes. I spent most of the movie with my teeth clenched. The odd funny bit simply didn’t compensate enough. Blah.

Take the Lead (Good)
A dance instructor attempts to teach ballroom dancing to a detention class at a New York high school. Inspired by a true story.
Loosely based on the real-life story of dance instructor Pierre Dulain, except instead of a new program to teach elementary school kids the art of ballroom dancing, we have teenagers filled with angst who must be inspired to leave their lives of crime and gangs. Kind of like “Dangerous Minds,” it was really pretty good, but if you want the real story of Mr. Dulain, watch “Mad Hot Ballroom.”

Step Up (Good)
A juvenile delinquent performs community service at a school for the arts and discovers a chance to better himself - and fall in love.
I will only admit that I liked this movie if everyone shuts their eyes right now. Okay then. I would give this chick flick a lower rating were it not for the throngs of gushing women, my wife included, who think this is the best dance movie of the year. I can’t argue - it was pretty good. All that and a good moral, too.