Review: "How To Train Your Dragon"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: How To Train Your Dragon

My Rating: 5 bites [out of 5]

In Short: This is easily one of my new favorite movies, as well as just one of the best films of this or any year. If DreamWorks Animation continues to release stories this well-written and beautiful and heartfelt, Pixar will finally have a run for its money. [full review after the jump]

Full Review:

Gobber: “If you want to slay dragons…you’re going to have to put a stop to all of…this.
Hiccup: “But…you just pointed to all of me!”

This is a masterpiece. Really, it is. I rarely find a film I love so much, but this is a very easy one to embrace. And, as much as I love the first two Shreks, this is DreamWorks’ finest film, harking back to their early, glory days of Antz and The Prince of Egypt, and as far away as possible from their empty pop-culture-gag exercises like Shark Tale and Monsters vs. Aliens (although the latter deserves props for the pure genius of casting Hugh Laurie as the British mad scientist, Dr. Cockroach!).

How to Train Your Dragon is the kind of a movie that seldom comes about, one that has the ability to please almost everyone. Like the first Pirates of the Caribbean (for me, at least), it has everything you could want in a big-screen movie experience: great laughs, strong, wonderfully-written characters, dazzling action sequences (with the best 3D effects I’ve ever seen), a love story that takes you by surprise (and yet never loses its charm), and a heart-tugging emotional center that could very well result in some (probably begrudging) misty eyes.

The action takes place in the island village of Berk, a seaside Viking population (where, amusingly, all of the adults are Scottish, while the teenagers are American) that is at constant war with the neighboring dragon hordes. The two have always been enemies, requiring Vikings to be strong-willed and tough-as-nails…which presents an odd problem for our hero, the lovable, very quirky Hiccup (voiced to perfection by his real-life doppelganger, Tropic Thunder and She’s Out of My League breakout, Jay Baruchel), a boy who has no skills in battle (or muscles to show for it), but makes up for that with creativity and by being the only wry, endearingly sarcastic Viking. As much as he might disagree with the need to always fight dragons – and the resulting, quite damaging (to the wooden village, at least) status quo – he longs to prove his use to the colony, particular his father, the village leader, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler, at his burly, Scottish best). Unbeknownst to anyone, with his only-occasionally-glitchy machine for catching mid-air dragons, he manages to snag the elusive, never-seen Night Fury. But what should have been his triumphant first dragon kill instead evolves into something deeper – he gets to know the dragon (later named Toothless), and the bond they share is a large contributor to the heart of the film. All of this coincides with Hiccup’s dragon-slaying-training with the other kids (voiced by Ugly Betty’s America Ferrera and Superbad alums Jonah Hill, brilliantly playing douchey, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse, very good as a chubby nerd with a tendency to see things like a role-playing video-game) under the far-from-watchful eye of crazed, missing-limb-ed warrior, Gobber (scene-stealer Craig Ferguson). And, of course, there are rumblings of the dragon nest, the perilous location that could end the war for good, one Stoick is desperate to destroy, and one that Toothless might just hold the key to finding…

You can expect a grand finale – easily one of the best action sequences of the year (sorry, Iron Man 2) as well as some rousing set-pieces, but what really won me over (like always) are the characters and their relationships. Hiccup, in particular, the oddball boy who, in the course of this adventure, becomes a man, is an age-old storytelling mechanism, but it has special resonance here (and not just because Hiccup really does look like me in some fashion). He does discover his inner action hero, although not as a result of abilities that were hidden from him, like the action clichés we’ve come to expect (or, for that matter, his use of weaponry—Hiccup, lanky a boy as he is, has trouble lifting shields, which makes for a terrific running gag throughout the film). His gift always was his ingenuity, his ability to look beyond the surface details of any situation, and that is what ultimately rewards him. If you think about it, it’s a lovely bit of commentary about our need for forward thinkers. Hiccup, through getting to know Toothless and their eventual team-up, sees the futility of constant war, and, more importantly, the danger of demonizing your supposed enemy. The dragon could even stand for Hiccup’s own untapped potential—while everyone else in his village could only walk and run, Hiccup could fly and do something extraordinary, being able to think with actual imagination as opposed to unquestioning obedience. As the film goes on, Hiccup becomes the voice for eliminating unfounded prejudices, for abandoning blind, backwards traditions, and finally getting to know these “beasts” as more than just brainless threats to the village. I always thought the best family films (ie, Jim Henson’s Muppet stuff, Pixar, Disney at its peak) managed to impart progressive ideas without spoon-feeding them to kids, squeezing in beautiful, hopeful messages underneath the laughs and the adventure. How To Train Your Dragon is a superb example of that: the quote that opened this review comes full-circle in the end, as we realize that the village – and, better yet, the world at large – needs more of what Hiccup represents, for there can never be a deficit of kindness, compassion, and open-minded thinking.

There is also a phenomenal storyline about a father learning to understand his son. True, Stoick and Hiccup seem to have nothing in common (which leads to a sequence later in the film so hilarious, it had me giggling for days), but they learn to see beyond that, and their journey into finding common ground is one of the most rewarding elements here. It’s expertly played (even in voice form) by Butler and Baruchel, proving that both of them should have nice, long futures in Hollywood, as long as they continue to choose high-quality projects like this one (and please no more Gamers, Mr. Butler!).

And, of course, there couldn’t not be a romance, right? Not when the village has a plucky, gorgeous lass like Astrid at its disposal, a fiery girl who could make walking away from explosions into an act of pure sexiness. Yet, like everything else in this movie, that thread is handled with care, thought, and just a great deal of charm—Hiccup and Astrid don’t get closer together because they’re age-appropriate and both conveniently single (as all adventure movies have taught us over the years), but for deeper reasons, those befitting a genuine connection between like-minded people.

All of those positive qualities go without even mentioning the striking animation or the carefully-constructed action beats. With all due respect to Avatar, this is the movie to see in 3D. There is a flying sequence near the middle that is absolutely riveting; it’s amazing how much the added depth of 3D contributes to the experience. You end up feeling like you’re right up there with Hiccup and Toothless, soaring in the air, feeling the high of doing something spectacular. This isn’t the rush-job 3D of Clash of the Titans or a gimmicky, throw-stuff-at-you exercise like The Final Destination. No, this is what could be done with the format if applied correctly—by making the audience feel like a part of the world on the screen, immersed and totally engaged with whatever is happening. It helps, of course, that the story is this strong, and that the animation is as lush and stunning as anything in Dreamworks’ arguably prettiest movie before this, Kung Fu Panda. By the time the final fight comes about (with a threat that I wouldn’t dare spoil), everything comes together – the story, characters, the animation, the tremendous score – to give you a climax that truly keeps you glued to your seat. There’s even a surprisingly mature ending right after that, one that manages to uphold the film’s hopeful ideas, while poignantly addressing that there must be consequences to an undertaking of that scale.

You might not agree with me that this is a masterpiece, but you should see this anyway (if you haven’t done so already!). It’s a hard film not to love, even if you don’t connect with every aspect of the story. And, thanks to this, we’ve also been privileged with having a true word-of-mouth hit – a film that opened well (although not gangbusters like, say, Iron Man 2, which I don’t think will have the staying power of this movie), but remained in the Top 5 for weeks after its release, encouraged by extremely favorable audience responses. I brought up Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl earlier, and that film behaved in the exact same way—minimal drop-offs week after week, and nothing but giddy enthusiasm from the people who saw it…usually more than once. How to Train Your Dragon is an absolute treat, and I have a feeling it will enjoy a similar future. Job well done, Dreamworks—you’ve made a lot of hits (not all of them deserving), but now you’ve made a movie that transcends mere box-office numbers – a movie that, like the best novels and stories and characters, will enchant audiences for years to come.

P.S. Just a month ago, it was announced that How To Train Your Dragon will be sequelized, with a follow-up due in theaters roughly by 2013 (which, on some level, makes sense, since this is based on a series of children's books). I’m of two minds about this: on one hand, I adore these characters, and I’ll show up for another of their adventures in a heartbeat; however, I’m still apprehensive about another go-around. If the filmmakers can come up with a worthy story, then I support them wholeheartedly (and there's hope for that, since these are the guys behind the well-received Lilo & Stitch…which I really must see now). Please, please, Dreamworks, don’t let this turn into another Shrek scenario, pumping out more movies to cash in on a brand name, even after the audience lost their initial support. There is story potential left (this movie may be a close-ended chapter, but there is still room to explore), so let’s make it a sequel that holds up to the original, or, in a Pixar-ish challenge, steps up its game to deliver something even better!
Read more!

Review: "Iron Man 2"

- Posted by Rusty

Quick Note: I hate making excuses to you guys, but a quick apology once more for the recent lack of updates. I had to step away from the blog these last few weeks to study for and take the GREs (I’ll sadly have to disappear again in two weeks for my random and potentially insane idea to take the LSATs). To begin making up for all of that, here’s an extra long look at this summer’s first big blockbuster. A review of How to Train Your Dragon – and a return to semi-regular updating - coming by Tuesday night. Thanks again to all of you for sticking around and checking the blog!


Review: Iron Man 2

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

In Short: Warning: this review is going to be pretty long (nothing beats my Harry Potter obsession, but Mr. Tony Stark comes pretty damn close). So, here’s a quick rundown: while Iron Man 2 is fun, big, and entertaining, bringing back the characters you loved and delivering just enough good action to justify the $12 tickets (as expected for a mega-budget superhero sequel), it falls short of its predecessor mainly due to a cluttered and unfocused screenplay. For everyone who wants more details, though, brace yourselves: this is my most lengthy monstrosity since the Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince review… [full review after the jump]

Full Review:

Ivan Vanko (a.k.a. Whiplash) to Tony Stark: “If you can make God bleed, people will cease to believe in Him. Then there will be blood in the water, and the sharks will come. All I have to do is sit here and watch…as the world consumes you.”

That’s a brilliant line, said with vengeful relish (and a very believable Russian accent) by Mickey Rourke’s Ivan Vanko, who also doubles as the main villain of this movie, Whiplash. It’s one of the best moments in this sequel, and it represents a fascinating thematic direction for this series to take, especially one that ended with Tony Stark announcing to the world: “I am Iron Man.” However, this also represents one of several great ideas that this sequel explores, none of which, unfortunately, are given enough follow-through to make this as strong and focused an outing as the first film. I can’t fully recommend Iron Man 2, as much as I wanted to and as much as I still love Robert Downey Jr./Tony Stark, but there are still enough good scenes and moments here to make it worthwhile to catch in theaters.

So, first, let’s talk about the good stuff. Picking up 6 months after the press conference at the end of Iron Man, we now find Tony Stark (Downey Jr., brilliant as always) dealing with his own legacy. He was on top of the world by the end of the first film, and now that world is slowly crumbling to pieces as his self-proclaimed savior ambitions bring about unexpected complications. The U.S. government is forcing him to release his Iron Man armor technology (the committee’s headed by a well-cast Garry Schandling, upping the smarm as Senator Stern), an unseen threat comes from Russia in the form of Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), whose Whiplash armor looks suspiciously like Stark’s own (even though Stark swears no one could know the arc-core design), his chief rival, Justin Hammer (another piece of swell casting—scene-stealer Sam Rockwell), wants to jump ahead in the arms-technology race, and, in an unexpected turn, the arc reactor that saved Stark’s life (the glowing chest piece that powers his suit and keeps the shrapnel from his heart) turns out be poisonous, now gradually killing Stark unless he can find something powerful – and stable – enough to replace it.

There’s also the matter of his company, now headed by his old assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow, lovely like always), a rift with his best pal Rhodey (Don Cheadle, taking over for Terrence Howard in one of this sequel’s biggest missteps), a curvy, mysterious new assistant (Scarlett Johansson), and the shady Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D., Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson, owning the role) who keeps pushing Stark to realize his destiny and join some “super-secret boy band” (Stark’s words, not mine. What do you think that refers to?) That’s a lot to put on Tony Stark’s plate, and as psyched as he was to be a superhero 6 months ago, he realizes here that perhaps he took on far more than he could handle in his (now dwindling) life span.

I mentioned this sequel had problems, and, just from reading the summary, you could tell that the filmmakers took on a lot of different story threads, something that diminishes the character journeys here, and makes the action look more arbitrary than plot-driven. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but in terms of positive qualities, all of those threads are interesting in their own right. I liked watching Stark struggle to make his life mean something, especially after the incredible high he felt in declaring himself to be a global protector. Ditto the arrival of Mickey Rourke, who, with that great, weary, heavy-burden-carrying presence of his (not to mention some respectable Russian skills), makes a solid foil for Tony Stark (at least in theory).

Plus, what’s amazing about these films (inspired, no doubt, by Downey’s own performance style) is how rapid-fire and witty the dialogue is, almost like an old screwball comedy at times. I watched it twice now, and I loved how I missed certain jokes the first time around, or how I was so busy listening to one person that the other’s reactions completely flew by me. That is a rare thing for a big-budget blockbuster, and it‘s especially great to see this immensely gifted cast in such a loose, playful setting – watching them play with and challenge their co-stars is one of the biggest treats in this film. Best of all, the film gives some nice closure to the Pepper Potts/Tony Stark relationship, so wonderfully started in the first film. Their adorable bickering and romantic tension was my absolute favorite part of Iron Man. I think a lot of fans will be satisfied by where these two end up through the course of the sequel, and Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow (in what is becoming one of her most charming and effortless performances) continue to make a great pair, with both actors equally matched in their terrific verbal spars. What I like best about those two is that they are intelligent grown-ups, and not lovelorn teenagers whose biggest hurdle is confessing their feelings. They’re a sensible, very believable, very entertaining pair, and I honestly think Iron Man has the best superhero romance of all such movies. (Even in The Dark Knight, the holy grail of comic-book films, the Bruce/Rachel love story was more of a plot necessity than an emotionally engaging part of the series…and the less said about Spider-Man’s whiny, horrendously annoying Mary Jane Watson, the better).

So what am I grumbling about? If I loved the characters and the acting – not to mention the laughs and inherent sweetness to many of the scenes – why can’t I recommend this as at least a good film? Because, in the end, it felt incomplete to me. There is certainly a lot of thought placed into this second chapter of Tony Stark’s adventures, but I have a feeling that its unbearably-fast production schedule took a toll on some much-needed creative decisions. Think about it: the first Iron Man came out in summer 2008. That means the entire sequel had to be written, cast, shot, and edited (with all special effects intact) in a meager two years. That’s lightning-fast for a production of this scale – The Dark Knight had a whole three years after Batman Begins (plus, it seemed like its storyline was brainstormed long before that script had to be finalized), and, in that light, I think Iron Man 2 needed some extra time to finesse its ideas. What we have here are plenty of strong character and story choices that needed to be better organized to make the entire package more cohesive, as well as more relevant for the further development of Tony Stark, the character.

Take, for instance, the two villains. Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko are respectable choices on paper. Both of them act as flipsides to Tony Stark and his alter ego. Vanko is the anti-Iron Man, a scientist who uses similar technology for selfish, purely evil reasons. Iron Man wished to save the world, while Vanko/Whiplash only sought to take out Stark for a personal vendetta. Hammer, then, is the anti-Stark, a weapons manufacturer who lacks the fierce intelligence and savvy of his rival, and who simply wants to eliminate the competition for good. From the good superhero sequels, like The Dark Knight and Spider-Man 2, we know that the ones that succeed manage to tie their villains into the personal issues faced by the hero, to make one unified theme in both the secret identity and superhero spheres. With the Joker, Batman/Bruce Wayne had to confront a nemesis who operated with no rules, no semblance of moral order, fueled by anarchy and chaos, a direct contrast to the upstanding, rigid-rules-abiding hero that Batman represented (which, of course, affected Bruce Wayne’s life choices as well). While Vanko and Hammer briefly touch on Stark’s own demons (both in his heroic and regular identities), like so many things in this sequel, those similarities never extend far enough to become fleshed-out ideas for the movie in whole (even Jeff Bridges' Iron Monger - lame a villain as he was - was a cool little metaphor for the type of cold, heartless arms-business perspective Stark swore to abandon for good). In the end, Hammer plays no role but providing money for Vanko to build some more suits, and, consequently, Vanko simply finds himself transformed from multi-dimensional, sympathetic bad guy into a video-game-like boss in the film’s climax. All in all, I think it’s time for Iron Man to have a real villain -- not another guy in a pumped-up techno-suit, but someone who actually challenges him intellectually as well as physically. Vanko and Hammer represent a move toward that direction, though perhaps it’s time to finally take on the Mandarin, Iron Man’s chief nemesis, who I’m guessing the filmmakers avoided because he skews toward the supernatural, in direct contrast to the more-or-less reality-based world Stark inhabits (then again, this should be easier to tackle once the Norse God of Thunder, Thor, is introduced into the Marvel universe next summer).

In another seemingly unfinished idea, I never bought the film’s suggestion that Iron Man brought about global (or, at the very least, American) peace. I’m sure he would put a major dent in crime, but to stop it all completely is just wishful thinking, and almost seemed like a ploy by the filmmakers to avoid any expensive action scenes. Just the same, the quote that opened my review could have taken the sequel down a very interesting, darker path, but the results of Stark’s first clash with Whiplash are shown on a minimal scale, hardly the “blood in the water” scenario cooked up by Ivan Vanko. Once the chinks in Iron man’s armor were shown – once you could see that he is not infallible by any means – that should have led to some sort of loss of public faith. A bit of context would have greatly helped, both before the movie got under way (ie, Iron Man stopping a robbery, foiling a terrorist attack, etc – anything just to show that he’s still at work making this world safe) and after the confrontation with the chief villain (ie, people distancing themselves from him, losing their trust in Tony Stark’s ability to maintain their safety).

This next part will be a bit SPOILER-y, so feel free to skip over it if you still want to be surprised when you see the movie. I need to mention it because one the film’s big reveals is also one of its chief script problems.

Finally, perhaps my biggest gripe is the lack of a concrete theme. This film brings out a few – Stark’s mortality, the greater superhero universe of The Avengers and what that means for Iron Man, and, most notably, the relationships between brilliant fathers and their sons. The latter is the most problematic: Stark is facing off with Vanko because of his father’s supposed mistreatment of Vanko’s, and yet no real substance is added to this part of the film. In fact, the entire section dealing with Stark’s father seems like a throwaway compared to the rest of the events transpiring here. (MAJOR SPOILER ALERT) Why exactly would Howard Stark’s great ambitions for Tony revolve around the discovery of a new element, one that just happens to power up his suit? If it’s important for later films in the Iron Man series, then, by all means, I respect that. Judging by this specific film, though, that just seemed awfully convenient, and, sadly, rather pointless (although major bonus points for casting Mad Men’s John Slattery as Howard Stark—I’d watch Roger Sterling in anything!). The fathers plotline is forgotten by the end, and when Vanko and Stark duke it out in the climax, it felt like it was happening because the audience had to be "wowed" with some stuff exploding, and not the culmination of two flawed sons fighting for the legacies of their fathers. Same with The Avengers set-up (which, to be fair, was awesome in so many geeky ways) and Tony’s health crisis – none of these ideas is given the attention they deserve, and each up being under-served. The first film knew exactly what it wanted to do – show the transformation of Tony Stark, the brilliant, boozy, womanizing rascal into a hero worth celebrating – with the invention of the suit symbolizing Stark’s own evolution into a man who deserves to keep living. Here, the story introduces so many things for Stark to experience that it dilutes the power of its arguably strongest element – Stark’s drink-fueled breakdown (a nod to the legendary comic-book arc, “Demon in a Bottle”) and coming to grips with his own potential demise. It’s too bad -- perhaps a little more screen time to work with - or a few more drafts of the script - could have made this more focused and direct, trimming the elements that weren’t entirely necessary (as much as I love Samuel L. Jackson and his organization, S.H.I.E.L.D., it didn’t need to play such a prominent role in this sequel…besides providing Avengers hints, of course) and pumping up the ones that would truly resonate with audiences.

End of MAJOR SPOILERS…

One final quibble: when Don Cheadle stepped in to replace Terrence Howard after the latter’s scuffle with Marvel, I was actually enthusiastic. I liked Howard very much in the original (particularly his chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. and that great, now-ironic moment when he looked at the Iron Man armor and said: “Next time, baby!”), but, honestly, I find Cheadle to be a stronger actor and – judging by the Ocean’s movies – funnier and quicker on his feet when it comes to improvising. Here, though, most likely due to the underdeveloped script, his Rhodey comes off stiff and surprisingly bland. If I didn’t know Stark and Rhodey were best friends from the first movie, I wouldn’t have believed it here; it probably would have made more sense to fight for Terrance Howard to stay for continuity’s (and chemistry’s) sake, especially if the character was going to be shortchanged to make room for some new players. The first film gave us a memorable friendship between these two guys. I’ve seen pairs like this before – the troublemaker and the straight arrow – two unlikely pals who, for reasons we can’t quite see, bring out the best in one another. Unfortunately, here they come off like two causal acquaintances, and, while Downey and Cheadle finally have some good moments near the end, they get so little time to interact that Cheadle’s re-casting – and, really the whole War Machine subplot (being the suit that Rhodey wears to help out Iron Man) – lacks the punch that it needed to become a vital part of this second film. (All that aside, I'm sure that Don Cheadle, easily one of our best actors, will improve once his character gets a meatier, more carefully-written role to play in the next sequel).

I know that sounds like a lot of complaints, but I really did want to love this movie (which is probably why this review took so long—I wanted to figure out exactly why I couldn’t embrace it, despite its many good qualities). The Iron Man movies are completely unlike all other superhero films out there – Christopher Nolan's new Batman series takes the cake for sheer dramatic depth and power, but these films are hilarious, intelligent, and just plain fun, albeit in a clever way that justifies all the explosions and special effects. And, however jumbled the story may be, Downey Jr. still holds it all together in another remarkable performance. It’s amazing that, in addition to just how funny he is in what will probably become his signature role, how much depth Downey brings to the role, how he really makes you feel for the moments where Stark feels his life slipping away, or how much he genuinely cares for Pepper, despite his own super-articulate, talkative ways getting in the way of showing that. When I saw the first film, I thought Tony Stark was the best original movie creation since Captain Jack Sparrow, and I stand by that. We rarely get to see such a perfect match-up of actor and character, and, with Downey in the role, Stark will continue to be the gift that keeps on giving. The rest of the cast does fine work as well, with special mention going to Jon Favreau as Stark’s go-to driver/bodyguard, Happy Hogan (also the film’s director, who probably couldn’t resist amping up his screen time and getting in on the fun) and franchise newbie (SPOILER ALERT) Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman/Russian super-spy (love that my people finally get something cool!), The Black Widow. Johansson really surprised me with how naturally she fit into this world…and how incredibly badass she was in her standout action sequence. If she’s getting set up for her own Black Widow movie, then that sounds like the right way to go (and with the Wonder Woman movie stuck in development hell, isn’t it about time that we get a kickass-female superhero movie?).

So, in the end, stay for these characters and stay for that killer dialogue, not to mention the superb Monaco Grand Prix action sequence that stands as the most thrilling part of the film. And, of course, get ready to geek out over the abundant Marvel superhero references. Catch the Captain America nod, the huge Thor foreshadowing for next summer, and learn exactly when Iron Man 2 fits into the timeframe established by the ending of The Incredible Hulk. (Stick around for the after-credits scene too, although it’s not nearly as cool as the introduction of Nicky Fury at the close of the first Iron Man). Iron Man 2 has its share of problems, all of them likely stemming from not having enough time to fine-tine this screenplay. And yet it’s not a disposable, empty Hollywood blow-‘em-up movie either. I’d suggest catching it in theaters anyway, just with your expectations in check for what will probably not equal the first film’s more assured storytelling and many charms. With Iron Man 3 most likely coming after The Avengers team-up in 2012, I think that should give the filmmakers ample time to cook up something more interesting. Hopefully, in the next go-around, we’ll be in for a more worthy chapter in the always-welcome exploits of Mr. Tony Stark.

And, to close this off, here are some of my favorite lines from the movie (but avoid at all costs if you want to hear these for the first time in the theater!)…

Pepper Potts: "You were dying? And you didn’t tell me?!"
Tony Stark: (resolutely) "I was going to make you an omelet and tell you all about it!"

Tony Stark (to Nicky Fury): "Wait, I don’t want to get off on the wrong foot. Do I address the patch or the eye?"

S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: "We need you."
Tony Stark: "More than you know."
S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Coulson: (not missing a beat) "Not that much."

Tony Stark (referencing Senator Stern and the Senate Committee): "I tried playing ball with these ass-clowns!"

P.S. If anyone has the time and/or crazy interest, check out my coverage of the first Iron Man 2 footage ever screened at last year's Comic-Con. It was one of my very first pieces for this blog, and, in retrospect, it might be fun to compare my initial (very, very giddy) impression with how the final movie stacked up.
Read more!

What’s on the Menu (April 23 – 25)

- Posted by Rusty


All in all, this looks like a pretty quiet weekend; think of it as the calm before the Iron Man 2 storm hits in 2 weeks. Although there’s some variety (we have a romantic comedy, a comic-book flick, and another entry into Disney’s new nature series), I’d use this weekend to catch up on some standbys, especially How to Train Your Dragon if you haven’t caught that yet (and I swear that review is coming soon—it’s my favorite film this year, and I can’t wait to talk about it!). Of the new releases, one looks solid (can you really go wrong with beautiful nature footage on the big screen?), one looks really entertaining, and one just looks plain dreadful. Let’s look at them in more detail… [breakdown of new releases after the jump]

1. “The Losers”

Story: Based on the popular graphic novel, this follows the title team of charismatic mercenaries (featuring Watchmen and Grey’s Anatomy’s Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Rock 'n' Rolla and The Wire’s Idris Elba, and the future Captain America, Chris Evans) as they join forces with a shady, badass femme fatale (Avatar’s Zoe Saldana) in an attempt to uncover the identity of the man that betrayed them.

The Good: Honestly, it looks like a lot of fun. This film is part of a surprising pattern of macho-specialized-teams films coming out in the next few months, including the update of The A-Team and Stallone’s 80’s nostalgia-fest, The Expendables. Of the three, I liked the trailer for The Losers the best, probably because it showed the best sense of humor amidst all the over-the-top stunts. I also like that it features no stars, but just a bunch of talented, very likable up-and-comers – Jeffrey Dean Morgan seems poised to headline many blockbusters in the future, if his turn as the Comedian in Watchmen proved anything, and I’m also psyched that Zoe Saldana, as brilliant as she was as Neytiri in Avatar, gets to have some actual face time in another big-budget flick. Best of all, word is that Chris Evans (who’s been all over the movie news lately, due to his landing the title role in some star-spangled, blue-tight big superhero movie) effortlessly steals the film, continuing his run of being the highlight in pretty much everything he makes.

I love pure entertainment movies like this, and if it shows more brains than the recent Clash of the Titans, I think we’ll be in for a good time.

The Bad: The reviews don’t inspire too much confidence, and even the people that liked it mention that the story holds barely any substance (as could be expected). It might also be hurt by opening so closely after the buzzy comic-book-based Kick-Ass and right before the blitz of Iron Man 2, one of the most anticipated movies of the year. Unfortunately, I don’t see this becoming a hit, for it doesn’t look like strong enough material to catch much fire right now.

Reviews: Mixed, with some loving it (like my fellow action-adventure nerd, Roger Ebert) and some just dismissing it as frivolous entertainment. Oh, and check out my friend’s great early review, which highlights the good and bad elements of the film in whole.

Overall: I think I’m seeing this sometime later this weekend. It does look enjoyable, but I'll admit that it also lacks the “must-see” factor that Kick-Ass and Iron Man 2 displayed. Still, of the movies out this weekend (at least the fictional ones) or just for some (most likely) good kicks on a lazy Friday or Saturday night, I’d go for this one.

2. “Oceans”

Story: Is there really one? The second entry in Disney’s new Disneynature brand looks to follow comfortably in last year’s Earth’s footsteps, here exploring the fascinating worlds and creatures of our seas and oceans.

The Good: I’m not sure if this will be repackaged Planet Earth material (a breathtaking, landmark series if there ever was one, which I’m very close to finishing on DVD!) like Disney’s Earth was last year, but, either way, this should be gorgeous on the big screen. In honor of the just-passed Earth’s Day, you really can’t go wrong with this one.

The Bad: Can’t really think of anything, with the small exception that some people might feel cheated if Disney has indeed recycled Planet Earth footage again. Nonetheless, I can't see much disappointment arising from a film of this kind, so I’d just sit back and enjoy what should be some astounding, remarkably-captured images.

Reviews: Excellent, as expected.

Overall: I wish I was a bit more of an animal enthusiast (and therefore could say that I’d rush out to see this right away), but, even if I don’t catch this in theaters, I still think it’s worthwhile to watch someday. Earth got a very positive reception last year, so, in that vein, this should uphold that tradition, and nicely educate and entertain all possible audiences.

3. “The Back-Up Plan”

Story: Jennifer Lopez stars as a fashionable, single gal who meets the man of her dreams…unfortunately, that same day, she undergoes artificial insemination and winds up pregnant! Most likely, some hijinks and wackiness ensue.

The Good: Well, it’s slim pickings for this one. Jennifer Lopez looks great, and it’s certainly nice to see her back on the big screen (am I wrong, or this her first starring vehicle in a while?). She’s also a legitimately good actress (as Selena and Out of Sight proved), so, on that level, it’s pretty disappointing to see her reduced to making Kate Hudson-esque romantic comedies like Maid in Manhattan, Monster-in-Law, and now this one. I also want to spotlight her co-star, the undeniably uber-handsome Alex O’Loughlin. I worked at CBS the year his vampire series Moonlight premiered, and everyone was excited about him, convinced he’d be a big star. It was for good reason – the guy has talent to spare (and isn’t it cool that the CBS big brass have so much confidence in him that, even after Moonlight and this year’s Three Rivers fizzled in the ratings, they’re giving him one more shot with the sure-to-hit remake of Hawaii Five-O…co-starring Jin from Lost?!). I like him, but even he deserves something that looks better than this.

The Bad: All of it sounds like some rejected sitcom. I hate when people falling, hitting stuff, spilling food on each other, etc substitutes for actual good writing and wit, and this film looks to revel in that. The premise maybe could have been cute and worth some laughs, but the trailer – and the near-universal terrible reviews, as seen below – suggest it’s not worth our time in the slightest.

Reviews: Very weak, though a few critics suggest that it’s no better or worse than an average Hollywood rom-com, which, admittedly (and only semi-embarassingly) I’ve ended up watching on more than one occasion.

Overall: It might not be terrible, or simply be a decent “turn off your brain” kind of rom-com choice, but I think you’ll be better off just renting a romantic comedy (or just catching one on TNT or something) if you’re in the mood for something like that.

And that’s it for the new releases. What do you guys think? Thinking of catching any of these this weekend, or will you check out some standbys instead?

I’m leaning towards The Losers and Oceans, with the latter sounding like the clear better of the two.

See you in a bit for some new trailers and my How to Train Your Dragon review!

Clips courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

Review: "Date Night"

- Posted by Rusty


Review: Date Night

My Rating: 3 bites [out of 5]

In Short: Don’t let that mediocre trailer fool you—Date Night is both and sweet and very funny, granting a perfect showcase for two of our absolute best comic actors. If anything, it’ll make for a pleasant diversion before the oncoming rush of huge summer films. [full review after the jump]

Full Review: I’ll keep this short and sweet, just like this film. However stupid and silly the trailer may have made it look, Date Night ended up really surprising me. It’s funny pretty much throughout its entire running time, with, best of all, a warm and heartfelt character-based story at its center.

Phil and Claire Foster (The Office and 30 Rock’s comedy giants, Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a mild-mannered, likable couple who decide to spice up their weekly “date night” by dining out at a trendy New York hotspot. Unable to get a last-minute table, they end up stealing another couple’s reservation…and then chaos – involving mobsters, crooked cops, wild car chases, and a shirtless Mark Whalberg – ensues.

Although things get pretty goofy from there, I actually found myself charmed by the plot turns, even as the night took the most insane turns. The film’s enjoyment value really rests on the dependable and always improv-ready shoulders of Fey and Carell. They ground the wackiness with an actual believability – you instantly accept that these are two regular people who just want to go home, who are in way, way over their heads. And, of course, the two comedy stalwarts make an adorable married couple – they work so well together, riff so easily off one another’s rhythms (his: deadpan reactions, hers: instant quips and witty one-liners) that I hope this isn’t the last time they work together.

The film’s structure also gives way to a revolving door of essentially one-scene cameos, many by some very recognizable names. I don’t want to spoil them (that’s half the fun), but, since the trailer already gave one away, I’d say Mila Kunis and James Franco (who were comedy magic together once before) made the most hilarious impression with their takes on the trashy, weirdly sensitive, low-life couple…the very ones whose reservation sets off the night’s events. Of the rest of the cast (with what little screen time they have), I’d single out Mark Whalberg, an underrated comic actor to begin with (see: I Heart Huckabees—not a good film by any means, but a performance that should have gotten him his first Oscar nomination before The Departed) who nicely underplays as the suave, tech specialist, and whose chronic shirtless-ness gives Carell (and a lovestruck Fey) one of the best moments in the film.

But, as mentioned before, all of the cameos and awkward actions scenes (at least for our heroes) wouldn’t matter if we weren’t rooting so much for Phil and Claire Foster. Through this entire ordeal, they rediscover not so much the spark in their marriage (that was there all along; they just didn’t quite see it), but rather how much they mean to one another, how valuable they are to each other as partners in whatever madness ensues (be it having a family…or surviving a ridiculous case of mistaken identity). Carell, in particular, so talented that he makes being funny look effortless, continues to show his strengths as an offbeat leading man (just as he did with Get Smart and Dan in Real Life). He has a gift for sincerity, for making bizarre situations and lines that may be disgustingly sweet in other hands, come off natural and lovely. Fey, too, is a comedienne whose talent shouldn’t be overlooked; the entire film is a partnership (just like the marriage at its core), and it would never have worked if one of the actors wasn’t up to par.

Did the film really need all the action and shooting and stunt work? (even though there’s a car chase in the middle that might be worth the ticket price alone. It needs to be seen for its ingenuity, as a kind of Jason Bourne-style craziness gone even more haywire) Probably not, and the film occasionally steps in to territory that’s too juvenile and lowbrow, at least compared to the rest of the movie. But Fey and Carell are so good in their roles, and the entire ride so unexpectedly pleasant, that I didn’t mind the occasional flaws.

In the end, it’s refreshing to see a love story that feels genuine (and a middle-aged one at that), even if the central couple was married to begin with. With barely any fancy speeches, these two end up having a more romantic and realistic relationship than pasty, angsty tweens could ever dream of. I could understand saving this one for a rental, but I think many people will be surprised by this film, just like me. Even with some script flaws (and the much superior story of a boy and his dragon, probably playing in the theater next door), I doubt you’ll find as many laughs and a more appealing couple to spend two hours with.

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox.
Read more!

Review: "Clash of the Titans" (2010)

- Posted by Rusty

Note: Sorry for missing the “What’s on the Menu” column again. To make up for that, I’ll have a review of last week’s only major release, the funny and surprisingly pleasant Date Night, very soon.


Guide to the Bite Ratings: I realize it’s been a (once again, super embarrassingly) long time since my last review. So, for anyone new to our ratings system, or for just a nice refresher, here’s a quick breakdown:

1 bite = terrible; an absolute waste of time (ie, Fantastic Four, Gamer, Friday the 13th, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen)
2 bites = mediocre; almost good; decent, but not quite strong enough to recommend (ie, 9, Troy, Step Up 2: The Streets, G.I. Joe)
3 bites = a good film, if not necessarily a great one (ie, Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland, The Hurt Locker, Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, Iron Man)
4 bites = a great film; pretty much an instant classic (ie, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Inglourious Basterds, Matchstick Men, Avatar)
5 bites = a masterpiece; a perfect film (ie, Lost in Translation, Almost Famous, Lawrence of Arabia, Ratatouille, The Incredibles); I’m very stingy with this one, but I think many 4-bite movies, with time, graduate to this level

Review: Clash of the Titans

My Rating: 2 ½ bites [out of 5]

In Short: Ridiculous and occasionally just plain stupid, this is still a lot of fun to watch thanks to the actors and the overall entertainment value. Check it out for the awesome visuals and great action, if not necessarily the dramatic arcs or character development (of which the less said about, the better). [full review after the jump]

Full Review: Clash of the Titans is exactly the movie it promises to be. The action is all-out, the Greek mythological world is represented here with all the best that modern movie magic could produce, and the entire experience is just plain fun.

It’s just not a very good movie, as much as I enjoyed it.

So, I’ll make this a cautious recommendation: the entertainment value is definitely here, as is some good acting (for a movie of this type) and a more-or-less faithful approach to the original myth of Perseus and Medusa.

In this version of the story, demi-god Perseus (Avatar’s Sam Worthington, in crew-cut, manly-stubbled, glowering good-guy perfection), the son of Zeus (Liam Neeson, always good), vows to take down the gods for the pain they’ve brought him (revealing any more would be too much spoiler territory—suffice to say that Perseus’ motivation is more effective here than the simple “Let’s go out and do this!” attitude he showed in the myth). As such, his journey has him facing off against giant scorpions (a great sequence), the Gorgon Medusa, the lizard-ified witch who turns men to stone with one look into her eyes (an even better sequence), the wrath of Underworld god, Hades, with his giant serpent beast, The Kraken (the show-stopper, with the Kraken better used here than in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest), and, in the process, hopefully saving the city of Argos (which, like all Hollywood period pieces, is populated only by Brits…and one Australian), whose citizens have stirred the ire of the gods with their selfish and impious ways.

If it sounds silly, it occasionally is. But the filmmakers, particularly director Louis Letterier, know what type of film they’re dealing with here, and they never try to be anything more (or less, for that matter) than just delivering a good, rollicking, adventurous time at the movies. With that, you might be willing to forgive the terrible supporting character development of Perseus’ fellow warriors (they might as well have been called Expendable Good Guys #’s 1-5).

Or the ridiculous creature design of Perseus’ ally, who comes off as a less articulate version of Treebeard from Lord of the Rings.

Or the fact that Hades (played with lots of scenery-chewing, slimy fun by the great Ralph Fiennes, who we’ll see again in villain mode in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows later this year) has a takeover plan that barely makes any sense. Why does Zeus even listen to him? Or, better yet, why can’t Zeus just stop him when it becomes obvious that he's been betrayed? Well, maybe it’s best not to think about that…

Like I said, if you go with the spirit of the film, you might be willing to overlook all of those problems, just like me. Director Louis Leterrier (The Incredible Hulk with Edward Norton, The Transporter 2 with my man, Jason Statham) stages terrific action sequences, like always, and shows a sly command with the tone of the picture as well, one that never quite veers into camp, but still manages to not take everything too seriously. I wish he showed the strong sense of story that he did with Hulk, but he keeps the pacing zippy and the action plentiful enough that I didn’t mind all that terribly.

More than that, the picture is cast just right. On the gods side, you could not do better than having Liam Neeson as Zeus, using that booming, commanding, and (yep) still pretty wise voice of his to maximum effect (despite the fact that this film retains Zeus’ stints as a part-time mortal rapist). Same with Ralph Fiennes, who’s clearly relishing playing over-the-top and irredeemably evil. And, on the virtuous side, we have Sam Worthington demonstrating once again why he’s so in-demand, and how well and comfortably he plays the reluctant hero.

--A note on Sam Worthington: I know a lot of people criticize his impossible-to-hide Australian accent (which, yes, still comes and goes here) or his lack of versatility. Fair enough, but, despite that, I find him an impressive young actor, one who should have a very bright future if he’s careful about his project choices. He might not necessarily become a respected character actor, but he certainly has the talent, and, like fellow Aussie Russell Crowe, he has the natural screen presence and charisma to hold your attention in a film of this scope. Look at him in his scenes with Neeson—he easily holds his own, and, throughout the entire film (even with minimal dialogue), you believe in his quest and in his ability to come out victorious. As he did with Terminator: Salvation and even Avatar, Worthington brings more depth than expected to this type of "conflicted" hero role. He has a straight-up drama coming up later this year, and I’m pretty sure he'll surprise more people once you get him out of the company of robots, gods, and giant blue aliens. Or, of course, he could always play Perseus again in a Clash of the Titans sequel (which just might happen, since the film’s a hit), something I wouldn’t object to at all!--

I also want to point out British actress Gemma Arterton (who will next be seen in May's Price of Persia opposite Jake Gyllenhaal), here playing Io, a slightly rejiggered version of the mythological heroine who caught Zeus’ eye. She mostly has to explain stuff to our hero, though she does it with aplomb, and she’s a very good, spunky foil for our straight-laced hero. Plus, the film nicely handles the would-be romance between Perseus and Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos), the woman who must be sacrificed to the Kraken if she wishes to save Argos, especially given that Sam Worthington has more screen time – and, really, chemistry – with Gemma Arterton. The film might veer off from the original myth to include more scorpions and special effects, but it keeps the story points that matter, and I very much liked that the script made Andromeda a strong woman with some actual agency over her fate, and not the boring damsel-in-distress (and prize for our hero) that she was in the myth.

All in all, if you can look past the many flaws, what we have here is an enjoyable film that just seeks to entertain. The effects are all amazing (well, maybe not the Treebeard…but the Kraken alone makes this worth seeing in theaters), the actors game to go with the tone, no matter how ridiculous things become, and, mostly, it’s just great to see the world of Greek mythology make such a huge return to theaters. If this gets kids excited to read up on Perseus and all his larger-than-life, horny, bizarre, yet always interesting fellow heroes, then, by all means, this is not a bad introduction.

So, if this type of adventure film is up your alley (it definitely goes with my ultra-geeky preference, that for old-school heroes vs. great, insurmountable odds), then you might come out with a smile on your face, just like I did.

P.S. I mentioned this before in the What’s on the Menu column last week, but I want to stress again that the 3D is not necessary for this film. As much as the advertising wants you to think so, the effect was added late in the process, so by no means was this movie shot with the intention of the extra dimension. With the exception of one axe flying at you, nothing here makes the extra $5 worthwhile. Unlike How to Train Your Dragon (the best film out right now—review also coming in a bit!), this wasn’t designed for the depth of 3D, so the world here just looks a little stretched out and poppy, nothing more. If you see it, save the money and just go for good old cheaper 2D.
Read more!

Trailer Time ("Schmucks"...and a crazy dude named "Scott Pilgrim"!)

- Posted by Rusty

"Scott Pilgrim vs. the World"

Ramona Flowers: "We all come with baggage."
Scott Pilgrim: "Yeah, well my baggage doesn't try to kill me every five minutes"

Stacey Pilgrim: "Next time, we don't date the girl with 11 evil ex-boyfriends."
Scott Pilgrim: (weakly) "Seven."
Stacey: "Oh, well that's not that bad."

Trailer Rating: 5 bites [out of 5]

What IS this movie? Based on the very popular comic series, I had a vague idea of what Scott Pilgrim vs. the World would look like, but none of that comes close to this bizarrely awesome first teaser. Scott Pilgrim, a slacker and musician wannabe (Michael Cera, the king of lovable geeks) meets the girl of his dreams, Romona Flowers (Live Free or Die Hard and Sky High cutie, Mary Elizabeth Winstead--nice to see her get a leading role). But, as it turns out, to win her heart, Scott must battle and defeat her seven evil ex-boyfriends, battle-royale, video-game-crazy style. Yep, you read that right. It's a hilarious idea, and I love the bait-and-switch in this teaser (which, at first, looks like another hipster teen comedy), as well as the "wham! zonk! kapow!" old-school comic-book visual style. From genre-bending director, Edgar Wright (who made two of my favorite films, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz), this just looks like a lot of creative fun. The supporting cast is also peppered with actors I love (Up in the Air's Anna Kendrick, Jason Schwartzman, and the soon-to-be Captain America, Chris Evans, who looks to rock his role as the obnoxious ex/skateboarding star, Lucas Lee). On top of all that, this looks to give Michael Cera a great chance to riff on the dweeby persona that made him famous...before turning that completely on its head as he develops into a legitimate geek fighting badass. Can't wait to see more! (as soon as the full-length trailer comes out, I'll have it up here as well) Scott Pilgrim takes on the evil exes on August 13, 2010. ["Dinner for Schmucks" trailer and thoughts after the jump]

"Dinner for Schmucks"

Trailer Rating: 2 1/2 bites [out of 5]

Shouldn't this look a bit funnier? I've been looking forward to seeing footage from this for a while now, and, well, the end result didn't floor me the way I thought it would. The premise - a bunch of corporate stooges have a weekly contest to see who could bring the most ridiculous guest to dinner - should definitely get some laughs. And, boy, does thing thing also have an amazing comic cast. I'll see anything with Paul Rudd in it (I'm actually watching his turn as Koonu in Forgetting Sarah Marshall right now!), and when you add Steve Carell, Office Space's Ron Livingston, Star Trek's Bruce Greenwood, The Hangover breakout, Zach Galifianakis (and one day I swear I'll learn how to properly spell/pronounce his name), and Flight of the Concords' Kristen Schaal and Jemaine Clement to the mix, there's bound to be some good entertainment here. I liked pieces of this trailer (especially the Post-It joke in the beginning, and anything with Zach Galifianakis and his "mind" powers), but other parts look a little stale. The subplot with Paul Rudd's disapproving girlfriend, in particular, already looks kind of grating, and something we've seen before too many times in comedies like this. On the flip side, the idea that this might turn into an offbeat friendship story (between Rudd's straight-laced hero and Carell's weirdo dead-mouse diorama-maker), before leading to an epic awkward dinner, is promising. We'll just have to wait and see. I know I'll watch this anyway, and, judging by their last collaborations (Anchorman and The 40-Year-Old Virgin), Paul Rudd and Steve Carell are brilliant together. And, after all, Paul Rudd's last starring vehicle, I Love You, Man, had a so-so trailer too, and that movie's now resting comfortably on my favorites shelf. We'll find out July 23rd if this is all worthwhile.


What do you guys think of these trailers? Has anyone read the Scott Pilgrim comic-book series? (I think I'll check them out before the movie comes out). And which of these summer films are you more excited about?

I'll be back later with my review of Clash of the Titans!

Trailer courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!

What’s on the Menu (April 2 – 4)

- Posted by Rusty

For a quick refresher (since it’s been an embarrassingly long time since we’ve done one of these columns), this is where we look at all the movies coming out this weekend (some of which we’ve seen, some we haven’t) and try to decide what looks best. It’s not always foolproof, but, for me at least, it’s a good way to see the variety of films being released and to juggle the good and bad elements that each offers. With that, this weekend brings us a summer-like blockbuster (welcome back to the movies, Greek mythology!),a tween queen moving on to more dramatic work, and another entry from a guy who just keeps on making hits. Let’s see what we have… [breakdown of this week's new releases after the jump]

1. “Clash of the Titans”

Story: To save the ancient Greek city of Argos, the heroic Perseus (Avatar’s Sam Worthington) must venture out to kill the Gorgon, Medusa, the lizard-like witch who turns all men who gaze at her into stone. Oh, and there’s also some business with warring gods (played by the great British thesps Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes) and lots of good modern angst for our hero, Perseus, who vows to reject his demi-god nature to defeat these evil forces as a man. Along the way, of course, lots of other action and special effects happen, but that’s all just part of the fun, leading up to the show-stopping epic battle between Persesus and the Kracken, the gods’ personal giant sea beast.

The Good: Just saw this last night! (Review coming very shortly) This movie delivers exactly what it promises; if nothing else, it’s very entertaining. Its script leaves a lot to be desired (more on that in a bit), sure, but the action is superb, the creature designs and effects very well-done, and it features some fun scenery-chewing work by Ralph Fiennes as Hades (Warner Bros’ favorite bad guy, since he also moonlights as Voldermort in the Harry Potter series…ahem, sorry, as He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named) and Liam Neeson as Zeus. Sam Worthignton (despite the fact that he’s the only Australian in ancient Greece) once again shows plenty of star quality; he’s very believable as Perseus, and a good enough actor to make you root for this reluctant, manly-stubbled and crew-cut hero to succeed. Plus, I have to commend the filmmakers for turning Andromeda (played by the beautiful Alexa Davalos), the Princess of Argos (and Perseus' would-be love interest, according to the myth) from a one-note damsel-in-distress into a strong woman with some actual personality.

Also, I’ve read quite a lot of reviews that accused the film of sidestepping the original Perseus myth. Having read the myth a few days ago, I can honestly say this movie is as faithful as it needed to be. All the set-pieces from the original story are here (the battle with the Gorgons, the three Fates with their one shared eye, Princess Andromeda being sacrificed to the sea beast), and I thought they were tied together as well as could be expected. If this is the first exposure to Greek mythology for a lot of kids, then by all means – it’s certainly better and more true to the world and myths than the kid-skewing Percy Jackson and the Olympians.

The Bad: Did I mention that script? It’s definitely not terrible, but all the useless subplots, thinly-sketched characters (mostly relegated to Perseus’ fellow warriors, who I’m positive are only there because they’re more expendable), not-quite-finished ideas (that’d be poor Ralph Fiennes’ Hades, who has a plan, but I’m not sure even he knows exactly what he wants), and odd, laughable character choices (that’d be Perseus’ sidekick who looks like a miniature Treebeard) prevent it from being a home-run adventure like the first Pirates of the Caribbean. Still, I think the entertainment value – and all the positive elements above – outweighs the bad in this instance. It won’t be on anyone’s Top 10 List, but it makes for an enjoyable night at the movies.

Reviews: Decent, although mostly pretty mixed. Some like Roger Ebert (a noted sucker for adventure films, just like me) liked it, while others panned it for its preference of loud special effects over, you know, actual drama and character work. But, really, you know what you’re getting into when you buy a ticket for a film called Clash of the Titans. Schindler's List, this is not (even though, ironically, it features two of that film's stars)...

Overall: I recommend it…although with a bit of caution. I think it appeals to our more kid-like sensibilities for great adventures in faraway, exotic lands. On top of that, it’s well-acted (for what this is) and the action sequences alone justify seeing it in theaters. If you liked the trailers and all the clips (which, admittedly, I liked too much), chances are you’ll come out satisfied by the final product.

Quick Note: The ads are pushing that this MUST be seen in 3D. Honestly, it’s just a ploy to capitalize on Avatar’s success (and now Alice in Wonderland’s as well), particularly since Clash star Sam Worthington also played the leading role in James Cameron’s 3D opus. Many fanboys cried foul at the 3D effects (which, to my inexperienced eye, were not awful in the slightest), but I can say that the added dimension does not do much for the film in whole. If the 3D showings are sold out, safely choose the cheaper 2D, and I doubt you’ll miss out on anything.

2. “The Last Song”

Story: A rebellious, angsty (is there another kind lately?) teen (played by reigning queen of the tween generation, Miley Cyrus) is forced or spend a summer in her father’s (Greg Kinnear, always good to see) Southern beach home. Young love, some good heart-to-heart chats, and (knowing that this comes from the pen of romance/cheesy novel guru, Nicholas Sparks), some kind of death will probably ensue.

The Good: I will always love Greg Kinnear (As Good as it Gets, Little Miss Sunshine, You’ve Got Mail), who, over the years, has become one of those dependable, charismatic actors who elevate just about anything they star in (yes, even Mystery Men). And as much as I can’t stand her overacting from the few episodes I’ve seen of Hannah Montana, I hear good things about Miley Cyrus’ performance here. Mainly, that it’s the work of a talented young actress, and not necessarily a Disney-packaged product trying to branch away from her target audience. Oh, and for a fun fact, this looks like the high-profile debut of young Aussie hunk, Liam Hemsworth – he’s the younger brother of Chris Hemsworth, who made an impressive splash in the opening of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek (he played Kirk’s father) and will next tackle Marvel’s superheroic Norse god of thunder, Thor! (I know, not particularly relevant, but it’s nice to see that this family might just have two talented siblings up its sleeve.) I may have my problems with author Nicholas Sparks (The Notebook, A Walk to Remember, the recent hit, Dear John), but he is known to make watchable films, especially if you’re in the mood for a grab-the-hanky tearjerker.

The Bad: I really can’t stand Nicholas Sparks. I’m sorry, I respect the fact that he’s a mega-best-selling writer (while I’m, ahem, a grouchy newbie with nothing close to publication), and his books get turned into at least modest-hit films (even the pretty awful Nights in Rodanthe did well on home video). Nonetheless, the level of manipulation in his stories drives me insane. There is always some kind of death (really, it might as well be a character in each story! The Grim Reaper probably gets most of his business from Sparks’ novels/movies) and his characters seem to operate only on the level of big declarations and ultimate, hokey resolutions. I’ll admit: The Notebook was pretty good (mainly because of the performances, though, and despite that corny conclusion), but that was one of the few. Judging by the okay (if unenthusiastic) reviews, this looks to hit closer to Dear John or A Walk to Remember territory.

Reviews: Okay. Nothing too positive, but very few outright negative notices either. Much like Clash of the Titans (which, I’ll admit, must looks as bad to some people as this movie looks to me), you know what you’re getting into. If you’re a fan of the previous Nicholas Sparks adaptations, this one might do the trick.

Overall: This is probably good counter-programming to the male-skewing Clash of the Titans. I have a soft spot for adventure films, so I’m sticking with Sam Worthington and his band of Greek warriors and over-the-top special effects. However, if a romantic drama is more to your liking (and you’ve enjoyed the other films based on Nicholas Sparks' works), then this might be the choice for you. If anything, it could be the first promising step for a young actress to watch, and it will certainly have some nice moments with Greg Kinnear, if the below trailer is any indication.

3. “Why Did I Get Married Too?”

Story: Four couples (returning from the first film in this series, with Janet Jackson and Tyler Perry reprising their original roles) gather together for a tropical vacation, all the while exposing their marital problems and concerns.

The Good: At this point, Tyler Perry has become a brand all by himself, especially thanks to his tough-talking Southern grandma character, Madea. This is a sequel to a film that had quite a remarkable box-office debut in 2007, so there’s certainly a fanbase for it. I have never seen the first film, nor really any other film from Tyler Perry’s collection, so it’s impossible for me to judge (although some of my friends of mine have, and they warned me that his particular style of moralizing and focus on faith might not be up my alley).

The Bad: It’s hard to tell: the trailer did nothing for me (looks to be, like Nicholas Sparks' stuff, a lot of BIG emotional speeches) and the below disappointing reviews don’t exactly inspire confidence. Then again, like I said, I’m not familiar with any of Perry’s other films, so it’s hard to take a critical look at this.

Reviews: Yep, pretty weak. Critics attack the film for its sermonizing style (sounds like it reduces itself to a lot talking heads, as opoosed to actual narrative momentum) and a mostly lackluster shooting style.

Overall: Well, if you were a fan of the first film, you will probably want to see this for some sense of completion.

And that’s it for this weekend! What do you guys think? Are you tempted by the effects-heavy promise of Clash of the Titans (no worries if you’re not—I can admit that that film just happens to fall into my particular geeky preference)?

What do you guys plan on seeing this weekend, if anything?

- Trailers courtesy of Trailer Addict.
Read more!