Summer Movie Preview 2010 Part 1 Page 1

SUMMER MOVIE PREVIEW 2010:
PART I

john cribbs, paul cooney, eric pfriender & christopher funderburg

John Cribbs: It's true: I haven't seen a movie in the theater since the birth of my daughter last December. To be fair, there hasn't been much to lure me away this early in the year - the closest thing so far was The Crazies with Olyphant and Radha Mitchell vs crazy people, which I ultimately decided would be just as crazy on dvd (I was scheduled to see Furry Vengeance with Funderburg but his newly-arrived baby on April 22nd put an end to those plans. Damn you, Parker!) But I figured this summer my kid'll be six months old, more managable and easier to foist off on relatives so that I could make it my business to go out and be among the people, see some summer flicks, have a good time. Then I saw the summer line-up...egads. It seems horrid. I'm not even sure what the "Big Event" film is supposed to be. Granted, movies that have fallen under the "Big Event" category recently have resembled heaping piles of rhinoceros feces with Megan Fox sitting on top of them...but something in me harks back to the summer of '89, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, the last time I truly felt that "summer movie magic." Something in me wants to give myself over to the big dumb spectacles of Hollywood: the cheap thrills, awful effects and recycled storytelling. Only problem is, I'm not sure which of these movies would even fit that absurdly attainable expectation. Based on the previews I've seen and articles I've read, Tinseltown's tentpoles have largely deflated into flaccid nubs that wouldn't impress even the least discerning of bar bitches. I never thought I would be nostalgic for a Transformers movie or a Pirates of the Caribbean - not to actually SEE, mind you, but to have out there earning billions of box office dollars despite their complete worthlessness. That's what the summer is all about! Seriously, the movies in this year's line-up look like spring release warm-up material at best. Have the big studios forgotten what the people want?

I'm no good at predicting what's going to bomb and what's going to be a runaway hit, but this year it seems even more impossible to guess than usual. It feels like nothing (besides, obviously, the latest Shrek and the new Twilight - they sure can pump those tween yarns out can't they?) is going to pull down the kind of numbers that stupid-looking CG robots and a swashbuckling Johnny Depp manage to drum up. But then what do I know? The real question is, are any of these things worth the time it takes to arrange a babysitter, get down to the multiplex, be back by such-and-such time? This is the first year I've had to take these things into consideration. As such, I've gathered a couple of 'smokesters together to give their thoughts on the upcoming summer flicks and determine which of them might actually be worth checking out...if any. Mr. Cooney, take it away.

Paul Cooney: Summer time comes, the high schools are closed so you take your ogling to the beach, but when the oil slicks and medical waste render the sand unsupportable for your sweet sweet ass, you take refuge from the hot hot sun in the cool cozy confines of your local cinema.

What a stupid choice you fucking moron. Haven't you yet realized that 90 plus percent of all movies made absolutely suck? What a strange hobby you have. Think of all that time and effort you waste going to see utter crap. Would you pay 10 bucks to stare into the toilet at a Daytona Applebee's during bike week?

And yet you willingly drop a sawbuck to sit through an hour plus of the latest Jenny Aniston disaster or Robin Williams atrocity. Robin Williams? Just what the fuck were you thinking?

However you surely can't spend every smoldering summer night in the steamy embrace of your favorite prostitute can you? What about those sultry evenings when she is delayed at the clinic? Or those languid days you're left alone while she is on the run from her parole officer? How bout those tempestuous times when she is kicked out of the Olive Garden cause she calls her waitress a fascist bimbo and is consequently not in the mood for fellatio no matter how many times you wave your heated breadstick in her face?

Then I suppose you can allow yourself to be diverted by the films Hollywood vomits onto the populace that seems so eager to lick it up.

As for me, what do I like to see? What diverts me pleasingly from the horrid pressures of everyday life like dealing with idiots and tying my shoes? I like to be distracted from the inexorable drive to death by something nice, something with boobies, that makes me laugh, and has a pretty locale.

A helpful movie-going tip is to avoid pretentious nonsense churned out by dweeby hacks like A-clown extraordinaire Stevie Soderburgh and the egregious cumstain Jim Jarmusch.

Are those two no talent fucks even making movies anymore? I hope not, but in any event this summer's outlook is bleak. Dinner for Schmucks looks funny and I know Mark E Mark and Will the Thrill will deliver the goods in The Other Guys, but until I see Natalie Kelley or Natalie Martinez in starring roles as globe trotting lesbians who rob banks by day and steal hearts by night I can't be too excited about what's to come.

I suppose that in a dumb world in which Sarah Palin is something other than the milfy waitress whose blouse I stare down when she bends over to pick up my used napkin at Denny's I shouldn't expect much in the way of being entertained by morons who keep employing Olsen twins and Culkins.

So, in summation, Hollywood should do us all a big favor and go fuck itself, and enjoy your time at the movies!

Chris Funderburg: From what I've written below, it might seem like I'm some kind of self-satisfied curmudgeon, a heartless bastard without the good sense and common decency to just kick back and enjoy all of the big brainless fun that summer movies have to offer. But that's not really true - you probably won't believe it (not because I describe Dinner for Schmucks as a "sure-to-be-shitbomb"), but I actually love movies, all movies, and on a certain level for me to enjoy it, all it needs to be is... a movie. What I am is Ricky Butler: sure, I might hide behind a smug wall of pure snark, self-consciously distancing myself from the sheer idiocy around me; but at the end of the day, damn if I don't love this neighborhood. (This neighborhood is movies.)

Eric Pfriender: So here’s the deal: I am absolutely the wrong person to be writing a summer movie preview. I rarely get excited about The Spectacle Pictures (movies you wish you had forgotten your spectacles for.) Last spring I saw the trailer for Transformers 2, and was totally confused because I had no idea that Transformers 1 had come out. Somehow a movie had been released that one tenth of the population of the Western World had seen, a movie whose sequel was already in the can and being heavily promoted, and I somehow thought it was still in the pipeline. Maybe the movies are getting worse, maybe I'm getting more pretentious, or maybe I'm just getting old; but at the end of the day, I just don’t give a fuck.

That said, John has given me a helpful synopsis for each of the films we'll be previewing, and I'll be watching all of their trailers. I’ll do my best to muster up some enthusiasm. But there are 52 films on this list. If I'm conservative and say the average trailer is 2 minutes long, I will have watched an entire feature film's worth of trailers for movies that I have next to no interest in seeing. So don't get your hopes up.

MAY 7
Iron Man 2

With the world now aware of his dual life as the armored superhero Iron Man, billionaire inventor Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) faces pressure from the government, the press, and the public to share his technology with the military. Unwilling to let go of his invention, Stark, along with Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), and James "Rhodey" Rhodes (Don Cheadle) at his side, must forge new alliances and confront powerful enemies (Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson and Sam Rockwell.)

CF: To me, the original Iron Man is a symbol of that most excellent vintage for summer blockbusters of 2008. Iron Man was a hugely enjoyable popcorn movie that delivered on everything I could reasonably want in a popcorn movie: a charismatic lead actor, fast-paced action, a sense of humor, etc. It was the finest wisp of agreeable movie nonsense in a summer over-loaded with myriad wisps of amazingly agreeable movie nonsense. Robert Downey Jr. deserved his praise. The suit was cool. Jeff Bridges is awesome and I will have no part of any post-Oscar, too-cool-for-school, Crazy Heart-actually-sucks-shit backlash (it does suck shit, though.) But for whatever reason, I'm leery of numero 2. For starters, the trailer feels like a rehash, trying maybe too hard to recreate the feel of the first trailer. And Gwyneth Paltrow is in it too much. And it has the "the sequel needs 2 villains!" problem. And Scarlett Johanson. She sucks. She's wearing one of those non-descript, new X-Men black rubber bodysuits and jumping around like Jon Favreau just saw The Matrix for the first time. Despite upgrading to a Cheadle, there's a lot not to like here. Although "Thunderstruck" is a much more awesome song than Black Sabbath's "Iron Man."

The verdict: I'll see it and hope Scarlett and Paltrow get the Adrian Brody-in-The Thin Red Line treatment.

EP: This I'm actually kind of excited for, with a few reservations. I thought Favreau's first Iron Man was kind of great, although a good deal of its charm was due to Robert Downey Jr and Jeff Bridges knocking it out of the park. Bridges died at the end of that movie, so we're already at a charm deficit. And ScoJo is not going to pick up that slack.

The first entry in a comic book franchise also has to deal with the Origin Story, which is great, because the Origin Stories tend to be awesome, but they usually don't leave enough runtime to flesh out the main story. You end up with forty-five minutes of someone becoming a Hero, and then, "Oh Yeah. There’s also this bad guy. Defeat him. Sweet. Now tease the sequel...and we're done. Let’s get a taco." So the sequel usually frees you up to do some more interesting story stuff (see: the great X2, the overrated Dark Knight, and the pretty great Spider-Man 2.) The problem here is that Iron Man is apparently so powerful that the only thing that can defeat him is...another Iron Man. Or thirty of them, based on the trailer (I should mention that Superman had the same problem, and Superman 2 turned out great. But General Zod was played by Terrence Stamp and no offense to Mr. Rourke, but you, sir, are no Terrence Stamp. Also...ScoJo). Wasn't that how the first one ended? Is this series going to be comprised entirely of Iron Man fighting exponentially increasing numbers of Iron Men? Only time will tell.

This movie is also another example of an actor coming off an Oscar-nominated performance and cashing in by playing the bad guy in a comic book movie.

PC: While the first Iron Man was enjoyable fluff driven by Robert Downey Jr is his most charismatic performance since he woke up drunk in that Japanese family's rec room, the sequel looks to be weighed down by unfortunate casting choices. While we all enjoy Scarlett Johannsen's plump chest, even the Israelis and Palestinians would agree that it would be better served smushed into my face rather than being onscreen attached to the rest of her body and face while she "acts." Mickey Rourke is repulsive and to misquote the foofy French dude in History of the World, "I don't like his face, I don't like his face, I don't like his face." Next time I need an emetic I'll look Mickey Rourke's way, but until then he makes me wince and retch. Don Cheadle has long been overrated and was easily the worst part of the flawless Brett Ratner epic After the Sunset. I digress. The Terrence Howard role in the original was utterly superfluous and they would have been better served just eliminating the role entirely. Sam Jackson has a pulse at least so that is a step in the right direction, the SHIELD dude in the original had the personality of my ass, and my ass is notoriously taciturn and shy.

Pepper Potts is a great porn name and I look forward to seeing someone other than Gwyneth Paltrow use that moniker to great effect in a school girl or nurse scene.

JC: There is absolutely no reason for me to be worried, based on the success of Marvel sequels helmed by the original director with most of the original cast still onboard (X-Men, Spiderman.) I'm not even that concerned about ScoJo, who I thought had the right idea in Frank Miller's The Spirit (also from a comic book) and I have to admit could make a decent Black Widow. And Sam Rockwell is a perfect choice for smarmy Justin Hammer. I simply hope that a) the movie doesn't get bogged down with its dozens of villains and b) Jon Favreau doesn't cast himself as a bodyguard again. Seriously, does Jon Favreau pose a physical threat to any normal person, let alone someone with the wherewithal to take on a dude in a heavily-armored suit fitted with missles and lasers? "Thanks for protecting me, Jon Favreau, you were about as effective and necessary as Terri Schiavo guarding an elephant from an army of termites." I'm really curious to see if Tony Stark is leavin' Las Vegas in this sequel, or if they're saving the "Demon in a Bottle" storyline for next time. Because, to geek out here for just a second, the melodrama of Tony Stark's alcoholism may be the best mainstream comic story ever told. What can defeat a man of metal? Only his own demons, true believer. And just think how well real-life former junkie Bobby D2 will play that shit! Instead it looks like this one is loaded with elements from the "Iron Wars" arc, and that's fine: they shouldn't cram in the subplots, they should wait to do it right. Oh, and they better set up Fing Fang Foom as the threat in part 3. He's a giant dragon!

I choose to be excited. Any doubts are just going to cloud my raw enthusiasm for this follow-up to what is probably the best non-animated superhero movie to be released thus far. Without David Hasselhoff in an eyepatch that is.

Tally: 3-1

Mother and Child

A drama centered around three women: A 50-year-old medical professional (Annette Bening), the daughter she gave up for adoption 35 years ago (Naomi Watts), and an African American woman (Kerry Washington) looking to adopt a child of her own.

PC: The two things I despise most in this world. As if the title wasn't repellent enough...hello what's this? This is a mainstream movie and not X-rated German fare? Well it still doesn't appeal to me, unless I can be guaranteed Bronx native Kerry Washington will spend much of the movie naked and on her back, trying to become a mother through countless condom free sex scenes with nerdy fellows who sort of resemble Clive Owen if the lighting is just right.

JC: Nothing like a soulless chick flick strategically released on Mother's Day. Didn't they create an entire television channel to cover this kind of material? Or is Lifetime riding high after acquiring Project Runway to the point that they feel superior to this kind of thing? If so, you go Lifetime - girl power.

EP: Yeah, I am not this movie's target audience. It appears to have Naomi Watts in it. So it's got that going for it. But what is this movie doing opening on the first weekend of the summer? Shouldn't it have robots, or The Rock or something? Veto.

CF: Way to keep consistent Naomi Watts: I'm sure you'll be excellent in this obviously terrible movie. Man, can you believe Kerry Washington is still hanging around? She's like Fresca - does anybody actually drink that shit? And who's so invested in forcing it on the public? Whatever the reason, most people aren't even aware of her or Fresca. I would imagine Paul wants to "bone" her. And the plot of this sounds like some executive heard about Secrets and Lies and decided to remake make it "so that it made sense."

The verdict: Yeah, right - save it grandma.

Tally: 0-4

MAY 14
Robin Hood

The story of an expert archer (Russell Crowe) who travels to the town of Nottingham toward the end of the 12th century, where the acts of a despotic sheriff (Matthew Macfadyen) and the presence of a beautiful widow (Cate Blanchett) inspire him to assemble a gang of mercenaries bent on raiding the upper class as a way to correct the sheriff's injustices.

JC: The new staple Hollywood subgenre - the Ridley Scott Sword 'n Sandal Summer Epic. It could be set in Ancient Rome, during the Crusades or in Sherwood Forest and yet the lighting, the costumes and the battle scenes all look exactly the same! I guess that's auteurism defined, right?

I have never fully understood what about the Robin Hood story is such a draw that it's been milked for dozens of feature films and a handful of tv series. A guy in green tights and feathered cap (unless we're talking a Dark Knight-esque revisionist Robin Hood: no feather for Russell Crowe, mate!) prancing around the woods shooting arrows to the tune of Bryan Adams (we're going to further revisionize you, Kevin Costner - no soft rock power ballad in OUR Robin Hood! Wanna wrastle mate? I got a phone call comin in for YOU! Love Russell Crowe.) Every new version of the story seems predicated entirely upon what's being done differently: our Robin Hood has a black sidekick! Ours has a moustache! Ours is old and has a Scottish accent! And this latest crack at the legend seems like it's SO revisionist it won't acknowledge it's a Robin Hood movie beyond the title. Just look at that description: "an expert archer." Uh, you mean Robin Hood? "A beautiful widow?" That's Maid Marian, right? Just say it - you're embarrassed to admit you're a Robin Hood movie! In fact, the original spec script of this one turned Robin into a villain and the Sheriff of Nottingham into the hero (but foregoing any semblance of originality, that was quickly changed back.)

Even if this one wasn't so immediately dismissive of its "action-adventure" roots, it's safe to say I'm done with all this rob from the rich stuff by now. I love the Disney version for its jaunty Roger Miller tunes and Peter Ustinov voicework, but every other version - yes, even swashbucklin' Errol Flynn - has left me indifferent at best. So unless they got Alan Rickman to revive his ranting, raping Sheriff of Nottingham belittling a sulking Michael Wincott I have no reason to even acknowledge this film's existence. To paraphrase what the South Park guys said to Tim Burton re: Johnny Depp - Ridley Scott, if you want to fuck Russell Crowe just do it already and move on.

CF: Well, I don't like either Ridley Scott or Russell Crowe and I hate self-serious, bullshit "gritty" takes on classic, rousing adventure tales (see: The Dark Knight.) Maybe you think I should give Scott credit for Alien, which is a goddamn, motherfucking masterpiece, but seriously folks the gentleman is the foreman of a shit factory: Body of Lies, Kingdom of Heaven, American Gangster, A Good Year, Matchstick Men, Hannibal (not about elephants?!), Gladiator (did this win Best Picture? the Oscars are fucking retarded), G.I. Jane (G.I. Jane!), White Squall, 1492, Black Rain, Someone to Watch Over Me, Legend (yeah, it sucks.) Also, when I see Russell Crowe, all I can think about is Scott Spiegel saying how Crowe would commandeer the tape deck on the van driving them to set on The Quick and the Dead and play just the worst Australian rap. Australian rap. The WORST Australian rap. God... movie stars are worthless human debris.

The verdict: I'm glad someone finally had the guts to offer up a gritty, realistic take on what has heretofore been nothing more than a classic, super-fun adventure story. I hope we get to see swarthy men covered in mud and sweat, shouting.

EP: I could point out that this is absolutely the right time to get behind a film about a hero of the people who steals from the rich and corrupt to give to the poor. I could also point out that this is probably a bad time to get behind a film about a loner who starts an anti-government guerrilla insurgency. But I just watched the trailer, and luckily, I don't have to point out either of those things, because this film is apparently just a sequel to Gladiator.

The poster advertises “The Untold Story of How the Man Became The Legend.” This seems a little disingenuous, since the story has obviously been told already. Several times, in fact. Remember how the climax to Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves revolved around a creepy witch grabbing Maid Marion's loins and advising the Sheriff of Nottingham: "She’s ripe! You must take her now!" Which led to a race against time culminating with Robin crashing through the window to stop the Sheriff from raping Marion in an attempt to father a child? And the rape scene was played for slapstick-style humor? That was uncomfortable. Also, what was the deal with those big ogre-people who tore down all of Robin’s tree-houses? The ones who came from the next land over, and drank the blood of their dead? They were referred to in the movie as "Kilts." Were those monsters supposed to be Scottish people? That movie is weird.

Also, Ridley Scott has not made a good movie since Alien. But, you know, whatever. If you feel the need to go see this, I’m not going to make fun of you. It’s probably got some flaming arrows in it. That’s my stance: if somebody gets hit in the head with a flaming arrow, this movie has essentially done what it promised you it would, and you have no right to be mad at it.

PC: When are they remaking Robin and the Seven Hoods? Can we get Damon and the boys on that? As for remaking the Kevin Costner classic...is Morgan Freeman going to reprise his role as Radio, the mentally retarded football water boy who inspires the downtrodden peasants of Sherwood Forest to adopt the Wishbone offense and thus lead Sherwood High to victory in the provincial championships?

My underlings are telling me that I may be confusing films...whatever...Russell Crowe is a bloated douchebag who probably skims a lot of the loot he pilfers from the rich to buy vegemite and Foster's. How can a champion of the poor be so doughy? Errol Flynn is rolling over in his grave, most likely atop some sexy sexy skeleton sluts cause you know even in Hades my man Flynn is getting some quality underworld snatch.

As for Cate Blanchett...what is this an all Aussie production? Mrs. Crowe worried Russell rhymes with muscle is going to cheat on her so she insists Maid Marian is played by plain jane extraordinaire wombat loving Blanchett? Sofia Vergara was born to play an olde english damsel in a very little dress. Get on it Hollywood.

Tally: 0-4

Letters to Juliet

A young woman (Amanda Seyfried) on vacation in Italy finds an unanswered "letter to Juliet" - one of thousands of missives left at the fictional lover's Verona courtyard, which are typically answered by Juliet's real-world "secretaries" - and she goes on a quest to find the lovers referenced in the letter.

EP: I wish I could say this looks adorable. But I can't.

CF: I can't even understand this description. And the trailer makes it seems brutally boring. Bug-eyed Amanda Seyfried is not a plus.

The verdict: What the shit are "real-world 'secretaries?'"

PC: Based on the title alone I have but two letters for Juliet, one's an F and the other is a U. Who sends letters anymore anyhoo? I would be more interested in this flick if it were called Sexting to Juliet, and Juliet was played by an actress who is synonymous with the letters DD. Natalie Martinez should have first right of refusal on every role coming down the pike from here on in.

Amanda Seyfried? Even her name is unattractive. I'd like to see Seyfried disappear and be replaced by a broad I have an interest in impregnating, fuck you very much.

JC: I had just assumed this was a movie about fan mail addressed to Juliette Lewis before I realized two things: 1) the spelling of the names are entirely different, and 2) Juliette Lewis has no fans. Can you imagine what those letters would be like, though? "Dear Juliette, I adore your work. Although honestly I'm having a hard time remembering which movies you're actually in. Was that you in Cookie? No, that was Emily Lloyd. Chicago Joe and the Showgirl? Hm nope - Emily Lloyd again. I guess I'm getting confused because you replaced her in that Woody Allen movie. I'm sure you were great in it...I never saw it, but I'd like to sometime. It's definitely on my radar! Send me the name of the title ok? Was it Radioland Murders? Anyway, I've included an articifical fly that I tied myself in honor of your heartfelt performance in A River Runs Through It. And a glossy of you in Tank Girl, should you be kind enough to sign and resend it. Make it out to Melaney (E-Y not I-E, common mistake!)"

I guess that's not what the movie is about, unless it's a poison pen letter to Ms. Lewis informing her that Melissa Etheridge does not actually want to come over. Sorry Juliet (sp), she's just not that into you.

Tally: 0-4

Just Wright

Physical therapist Leslie Wright (Queen Latifah) falls for the basketball player (Michael Landes) she is helping recover from a career-threatening injury. Also starring Common.

PC: Finally the movie I've been waiting to see. When I found a magic lamp last summer I rubbed it and asked for a dramedy starring Queen Latifah, some dude I never heard of, and Common, and for it to be directed by the chick who did Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. The genie has answered my wish apparently! Or was I in fact masturbating while high on peyote? It felt just right so in either case this movie is sure to do at least 5 million...very worthwhile endeavor. Just pointless.

EP: Now this looks adorable. And it features Common playing for the Nets. And that title is hilarious. Because the protagonist's name is Leslie Wright! Get it? Just Wright? How about them apples.

JC: So much for the clever title of my Wright Brothers movie starring Marlon and Keenan Ivory Wayans. And its sequel, If Loving You Is Wrong I Don't Wanna Be Wright. And the third film in the series chronicling their fame and fortune, Wright on the Money. It's shocking that Queen Latifah didn't win that Oscar, as her career trajectory since then has been the downward spiral of an Oscar winner.

CF: "Also starring Common." This will be terrible. Case closed.

The verdict: We have a leader for this year award for "Title that doesn't make any sense because it's not even a pun."

Tally: 0-4

<<Previous Page 1 2 3 4 Next Page>>

home about contact us featured writings years in review film productions