The Avengers has the perfect mix of ingredients, The Hobbit has the pedigree and Dark Knight Rises has the edge of the unknown and the unexpected.

Ridley Scott’s Prometheus has all of the above.

Its trailer is easily my favorite out of all of the above films and after many months of vagueness regarding the film’s ties to Alien, I think it’s safe to say now that there are definitely a connection to that franchise. The throwback to the Alien title sequence as well as the quick shot of the Space Jockey and the general aesthetic of H.R. Giger’s work clearly points towards that direction. Ridley Scott’s film career has been fairly ho-hum outside of Alien and Blade Runner but this trailer has gotten me pretty pumped up about the film and it’s gonna be interesting to see what Scott can do with a science fiction story using modern special effects instead of rubber suits.

I’m extremely hopeful but a small part of me fears it could be another case of the Star Wars prequels.

Either way, they’ve got my money.

Well, it looks really fucking good so far.

Excitement!

Dark, imposing, fear-inducing and fancy headwear are the things that define Darth Vader for me visually and I tried to keep those four things in my design. I show the top of his head so he doesn’t come across as a full robot but kept the breathing mask thingy that is so iconic of the character.

I really like how this turned out and I love doing shiny, reflective stuff. Unlike, say, human skin, you don’t have to worry about subtlety when you’re doing something like metal.

I do wish I’d designed the boots a little better though.

PS: I just watched some of the changes to the Blu-Ray release of the original trilogy and, well, fuck George Lucas and his bastardization of those films. Christ, what an asshole.

About a year ago, I saw the Clash of the Titans remake, thought it to be terrible and decided to write a review of it. I set up a post (header image and all) but days quickly turned into weeks and I never actually wrote more than a few words on my draft. After finally giving up on it, I came to realize that I didn’t want to write about something that I so disliked and, to this day, I still haven’t. But I kinda have to write a Green Lantern review, don’t I?

With its superheroics and heavy dose of sci-fi, the Green Lantern characters and mythology are among my favorites in comics so the Martin Campbell directed movie had a leg up on the competition from the start. On the flip side, it had to contend with an ungodly amount of expectations and years of anticipation on my part but, despite that, I like to think that I would’ve been pleased with a solid popcorn movie at the least.

Unfortunately, I didn’t even get that.

One of my biggest concerns prior to seeing the movie was Ryan Reynolds. I couldn’t see his sarcastic shtick translating well to Hal Jordan but it turns out that he’s among the least of the film’s problems. His Hal is as cocky or as stoic as he needs to be and his comedic timing works where the script doesn’t impede it. While not the performance of a lifetime, he does an admirable job at selling the character and my biggest issue with his portrayal of Jordan is that he’s too mopy for a big chunk of the movie.

But that isn’t so much a fault of Reynolds as it is of the script and, without a doubt, the majority of the film’s failings stem from Marc Guggenheim and Greg Berlanti’s text. So, where to begin? We are given no reason to root or care for any of these characters. Exposition through dialogue is a big problem in the film and I’m not even talking about the opening sequence. Characters and plot elements are dropped in the story and never picked up again, most noticeably with Hal’s family and villain Hector Hammond’s telepathy among others. There is no connecting tissue between scenes and characters jump from setting to setting without any logical explanation, inferred or otherwise. The viewer’s suspension of disbelief must be nothing short of extraordinary for the film to be palatable. And, naturally, there are plot holes, pacing issues, contrivances and the like but the list goes on and on beyond that. It’s just a huge, unintelligible mess that’s at times confusing and almost distressing.

But with the film’s source material being as visual as comics are, possibly my largest issue with the film’s script lies in its failure to acknowledge one very basic and rudimentary rule of filmmaking: show and not tell. We are “told” that the Green Lantern Corps is the most powerful force in the universe but we never “see” it. All they do is shoot little skyward beams of light after a speech and then, later, we see a handful of them get mauled by Parallax. We are given no reason to believe that the Green Lantern Corps is as powerful as we’re told. For all intents and purposes, the aspirations of the greatest force in the universe is no higher than that of props. Expensive, computer animated props.

Similarly, we are “told” that Sinestro is a badass and the greatest Green Lantern of all time but we never “see” it. All he does is beat up on a very green Jordan (no pun intended) who’d just gotten his ring about five minutes earlier, give some speech and then, for the remainder of the movie, whine to the Guardians about what needs to be done without ever doing a single thing in the process. Regardless of how great Mark Strong was in the role, I fail to comprehend why Sinestro needed to be in the film at all (other than to set up the eventual sequel, I suppose) because he contributed absolutely nothing to it.

So what did I like? Well, I liked the ring constructs and I’m not afraid to admit that I got giddy whenever Hal whipped up something out of thin air, be it a simple spring or dual jet fighters. I’ve heard noise about how some people feel that the constructs created by Jordan were boring and mundane but they fail to realize that he’s the kind of guy that’ll create a straight-up boxing glove when it’s time to punch somebody. This might perhaps not be as exciting as people would like but it’s true to the character at least and I appreciate that. Still, much as I like Jordan, I can’t help but wonder if Green Lantern could’ve been a better film if it had been about Kyle Rayner who is much more relatable, has a more humble superhero origin and more of a hero’s journey than Hal does. It would certainly please viewers who thought the contructs were boring. But that’s an entirely different post waiting to happen so I’ll leave it at that.

I thought the CG was competent overall and I liked the myriad of cameos in the film if only because they appease the geek inside me. It was really cool to see Bzzd in there. What’s really disconcerting here is that I can’t think of a single element in the film that I liked other than “hey, they did a pretty good job with the CG there.” There is one scene where Hal goes for the cliché of the superhero flying to his love interest’s window in romantic pursuit with the joke being that Carol Ferris (flatly played by Blake Lively) immediately recognizes Hal and freaks out but it’s just not played out well and the scene falls apart. So I guess I kinda like the idea of that even though it didn’t really work. I do like that Jordan defeated Parallax by himself without help from the Corps though.

I really, really tried to like this movie but I can’t, in my right mind, recommend it to anybody. There are certainly worse superhero movies out there. Wolverine was extremely groan inducing and I hear Catwoman is pretty bad as well. I don’t quite think Green Lantern is “bad” on those terms. I think it’s bad because of how much better it could’ve been and because of how much it reeks of having too many grubby fingers all over it. It reeks of “you need to put as many Lanterns as you can in there so we can sell lots of toys,” and “you say there’s a problem in the story? throw in a few million dollars of CG to fix it!” and “you need to put this and this and this element from the comics in there even if they don’t make sense in the context of the movie,” and so forth. It reminds me of Tron: Legacy in many ways, a mediocre, soulless, merchandise-driven movie that was over-budgeted and over-marketed. But this is me editorializing a bit, I suppose. I don’t claim to know what happened behind closed doors but the disaster that Green Lantern turned out to be speaks volumes and does leave a lot to the imagination.

Maybe the animated series will make up for it.

It’s great when a piece of entertainment lives up to fantastic concept art like the one above.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Thor has had some great runs in the comics but he’s arguably better known as one of the “Big Three” in the Avengers alongside Captain America and Iron Man. With the Avengers movie officially in full throttle since the post credits sequence in Iron Man, the question posed by a potential Thor movie wasn’t an “if” or even a “when,” but a question of “how?”

It’s undoubtedly one of the Marvel properties that poses the most challenges in being adapted to the big screen due to the vast mythology behind it and its refusal to adhere to the mostly street level nature of the Marvel Universe. How to reconcile the story of a guy that builds an armor to fight crime with an epic tale of a struggle between gods? And how to do it without upsetting a largely Christian audience? Out of all the movies that have been announced from Marvel Studios, it was Thor that I was most curious about because of these very questions.

So how did they tackle these issues?

The first chunk of the film is set mostly in Asgard and it’s front-loaded with exposition. In many ways, it was smart to throw all that information head first and get it out of the way as soon as possible but, at the same time, the character aspect of the film is forced to take a backseat and it’s difficult to care for what’s going on during those initial 30 minutes or so. I’m also curious as to how someone that’s not familiar with the comics (or even Norse mythology in general) will digest all this information as well as some of the more wilder concepts in the film but I digress. The decision to define the Norse gods as basically space aliens has been frowned upon by hardcore fans but it was an elegant solution to avoid potential negativity from the right wing (though with some neopagan groups already being vocal against the film’s portrayal of Norse gods, I suppose it was a no-win situation either way) and, to be honest, it’s an alternate interpretation of the mythos that could work even in the comics. Science fiction is more palatable and mainstream than fantasy, after all.

The movie begins in earnest once Thor is banished from Asgard to Earth and the film turns into a successful, if trite, tale of an arrogant man that learns humility in the face of dire circumstance. The plot, though punctuated by some exciting action sequences, is more PG than most superhero movies but the character moments, both high and low, are great and go a long way towards making you truly feel invested in these characters and their world. The comedy succeeds in a similar level with predominantly “fish out of water” humor that is fresh and spot-on.

Thor himself, as he’s portrayed in the film, is a little more green and reckless than I would’ve preferred but it’s for the sake of the character arc and, thankfully, Chris Hemsworth’s charismatic performance easily sells you on the part. I thought Robert Downey Jr. would steal the show in the Avengers but (and this wasn’t apparent in the trailers) Hemsworth might just give him a run for his money. His Thor is great in every level much like the rest of the characters in the film who are wonderfully cast and written. Brief banter between the Warriors Three’s gives them personality and quickly defines them individually and even Kat Dennings, who is chiefly comedy relief, gets to shine in places. The cast is marred only by Natalie Portman not because of her acting but because of the extreme flatness in which her character was written. It seems like all she was asked to do in the film was smile and make puppy eyes and her Jane Foster contributes little to nothing in the way of the actual plot. It’s a noticeable blemish in a film that’s otherwise rock solid.

The climax of the film, and this goes back to that awesome concept art, has Loki and Thor duking it out in the Rainbow Bridge and it is a suitably epic battle. It’s a personal fight between two brothers but the larger stakes within it are set high and it works equally well in both levels. Thor makes a big sacrifice during this end sequence and this leads to a rather bittersweet ending that was incredibly refreshing in a world where superhero movies conclude almost too neatly.

In many ways, Thor is rather vanilla in terms of plot but there is great action in it and more character moments than any other superhero movie I can think of (wait until you see Odin on Sleipnir or Sif’s ass-kickery). This is easily one of the better movies to come out of Marvel Studios and the sheer difficulty in making such a larger than life character work in film makes this all the more impressive. Kenneth Branagh has done good and this movie is absolutely worth your money.

PS: The sound effects are really, really good too.

After leading people to believe that he was going to auction off the distribution rights to his newest film, Red State, after its Sundance 2011 screening, Kevin Smith gave movie studios the collective finger by announcing that his plan was to distribute the film by himself all along. So he’s doing a Red State tour around the country for a few months, screening the movie in select locations and culminating in a more traditional theatrical release later in the year. He’ll spend no money on advertising.

Quick thoughts on this and full video of Smith’s speech below.

In the past, Smith has been very vocal about his misgivings with the press thanks to various misquotes and things taken out of context during interviews and whatnot and now he’s made it clear that he doesn’t buy the current studio model either, what with advertising costs of a film being sometimes triple that of what it cost to make the actual movie in the first place. Say what you want about Smith but I can do nothing but applaud him for this. The impenetrable nature of the current distribution model and all the needless red tape this brings about is no doubt a detriment to the artistic pursuit of a lot of filmmakers. You hear stories all the time about how bone-headed decisions by studio executives in not just films, but animation and video games as well, bring about nothing but frustration and mediocrity. Spider-Man 3′s forced inclusion of Venom comes to mind. So Smith decides that he simply doesn’t want to play that game and foregoes all of it in favor of what I described earlier.

It’s a bold move and it’ll be interesting to see if he succeeds and what the measure of that success is. Personally, I can’t wait to get my ass to Radio City Music Hall this March for its Red State screening because, all this drama aside, I just really want to see the movie. It’s also worth pointing out that he hopes to bring this distribution model to independent filmmakers that might be discouraged from going forward with a movie for the very same reasons that Smith is being so vocal against. For that alone, Kevin Smith must be commended.

Stay ahead of that puck, Smith.

Though never a fan of the original Tron (I’ve never even seen it but I do admire how ahead of its time the concept was) I was pretty psyched about the prospect of a new Tron movie based solely on the test footage that was released way back at San Diego Comic-Con 2008. In the months leading up to the release of the now officially titled Tron: Legacy, the wondrous world wide web, as it always does, did its best to point out that the much hyped and marketed sequel perhaps wasn’t as good as Disney wanted it to be. Talk of reshoots and rather poor early reviews among other things caused me to slowly but surely lower my expectations to the almost bare minimum needed for me to thrown down money for a movie ticket.

Tron: Legacy had my money and, in the end, it met the expectations I had for it.

Barely.

Tron: Legacy mostly succeeds aesthetically. The Daft Punk soundtrack is phenomenal and putting them in charge of the score was an inspired choice and one that gives the film a distinct aural voice, even if some of the tunes do veer into typical, orchestrated action movie space just a little too closely for my tastes. Similarly, the visuals and art direction are immediately impressive (just look at any of the trailers for proof) though you do feel like you’ve seen all the tricks in the bag by the end of the second act. These two elements are the stronger and more memorable parts of Tron: Legacy, it’s the story that makes the film a difficult one to watch.

It’s not that the world isn’t inviting or that the characters’ motivations are unclear or that the stakes aren’t high enough, it’s the failure to provide characters that are compelling or relatable on even the most basic levels where the movie really falters. The father/son relationship between Kevin and Sam Flynn (Jeff Bridges and Garrett Hedlund respectively) is so flat and robotic throughout most of the film that I feel I can almost precisely pinpoint what scene Pixar was brought in to rewrite. It’s both amusing and perplexing to me how computer programs Quorra (Olivia Wilde), with her childlike innocence and wonderment, and Clu, with his moral quandaries and father issues, seem more human than the actual human characters.

(And on the subject of Clu, I’d just like to take this opportunity to ask Hollywood to just stop. Stop putting CG characters alongside human actors and expecting us to not see a difference. It’s awkward, it’s unnatural and it constantly pulled me out of the experience. A simple plot device would’ve sufficed to avoid the need to have a young Jeff Bridges in the film. Please.)

Ultimately, it never feels like the characters are moving the story forward and the film simply devolves into senseless jumping between plot points for no apparent reason other than the movie requiring it. There’s betrayal and a character reveal (both are predictable) but there’s no incentive to care about either of these in the first place. And, whereas competent action movies would weave in story alongside proper action sequences, Tron: Legacy is almost like an “on” or “off” switch, content with being either about exposition or about showing off its special effects. Sadly, only two of said action sequences are good (the lightcycle battle being, thankfully, one of them) and the lightjet sequence at the very end is actually kinda boring and anti-climactic.

Disney is putting a lot behind this one movie with sequels, animated series and theme park rides already in development and all hinging on its success. There’s loads to be said here about marketing and hype and a company just desperately wanting a movie to succeed but I digress as that’s a topic better left for another time. I don’t think tying the plot of Legacy so closely to the original, a film quite dated by most accounts, was the best of ideas either but that’s neither here nor there.

Ultimately, Disney threw down a ton of money for a movie that is average at best. I’d like to think that they’ve learned from the experience and that the impending sequel will be a better film. There’s potential in the world of Tron and I’d like to see it fully realized.

The first thing I did after watching 127 Hours in the theater was to hit up IMDB to refresh my memory on director Danny Boyle’s previous efforts. Of his movies that I’ve seen, I happen to dislike 28 Days Later on many levels and I think Sunshine started out really strong before it plummeted into mediocrity a little after the halfway mark. That I think so little of these movies was surprising to me because I absolutely loved 127 Hours.

The movie is based on the story of Aron Ralston, a man who became trapped in a rock canyon and was forced to sever his own arm to escape. It’s good source material to say the least and, with this in mind, my two main concerns going in were: can a movie that primarily depicts a man inside a canyon for over five days possibly be entertaining? and, based on testimonies of people fainting in theaters, just how gruesome is the amputation scene going to be?

Having seen the movie, I realize now that those two queries are almost irrelevant in context of what movie is really about.

So yes, aside from a brief opening where our lead goes swimming with two girls and brief flashbacks sequences later on, the viewer spends most of the time in the film with Aron Ralston, as portrayed by James Franco, in a claustrophobically small canyon. In fact, it’s only after his arm is initially trapped that the title of the film appears on-screen, as if to tell the viewer ”here is where this movie really begins.” The movie clocks in at 94 minutes and I’d guess about an hour or so is spent in that canyon and, to answer my earlier question, not only is it thoroughly entertaining, it is downright enthralling. Some of it has to do with Boyle’s decision to keep the runtime relatively short but most of it can be attributed to his unquestionable deftness as a director. The movie employs odd camera angles and unconventional cuts and transitions along with sporadic use of video filters to depict different viewpoints (camera, video camera, Ralston’s POV, etc.) and all of this helps keep the movie visually arresting.

But it’s ultimately Ralston’s plight, his progressive mental deterioration and his subsequent catharsis where the film really shines. It’s a shame that moviegoers have put so much emphasis on the limb severing aspect of the film when, in reality, that’s only the end point of a life changing experience for Ralston and Boyle’s depiction of this is what truly makes the film fantastic. The line ”this rock has been waiting for me all my life,” as uttered by Ralston towards the end of his journey in the crevice is an extremely powerful one and the realization this brings to him is the culmination of one of the most exquisite character arcs I’ve ever seen put to film. All the visual cues that had been laid down come full circle and Ralston’s liberation, both mentally and physically, is poignant, emotional and inspirational.

Indeed, 127 Hours is a veritable rollercoaster of emotions. Fear, sympathy, convulsion, elation and unknowingly gripping at the edge of my seat are but a few of the things this film put me through and it’s James Franco that cements that connection between film and audience. His Ralston is put through as much as the audience is (and then some) and it’s his acting that makes so much of the film come across as believable and honest. It’s a stellar performance by an actor that I, to be honest, didn’t think had it in him.

But do I question at times how different my reception of the film had been if it hadn’t been based on a true story. I’m certain that one of the reasons why 127 Hours is so powerful is the knowledge that this happened to a real human being. Not to discredit the outstanding work of the director, actors and film crew but I wonder if the movie would’ve worked as well if it were entirely based on fiction. It’s an intriguing thought but one that, at the end of the day, is not worth spending too much time on. The movie works because it does, in fact, tell the story of the real Aron Ralston, and it does so without deifying him or turning him into something he’s not. It’s the story of a real person with flaws and the unfortunate set of circumstances that led him to become a better man. It’s a movie that’s absolute worth your money and time.

At the fear of turning this into tagline central, I will promptly end this review with the following: 127 Hours is the best movie I’ve seen this year.

Over the last few days, we lost two giants who left their marks in completely different areas of the film industry. There is really nothing to be said of Irvin Kershnel, the man who directed, among others, a movie that is one of the greatest of all time and the voice of a generation. Of Leslie Nielsen remain memories of joy and innumerable laughs. David Zucker, famed for directing Airplane! and Naked Gun, pens it better in a tribute he wrote for The Hollywood Reporter which I’ll post a transcript of below.

They will both be missed.

It was summer 1979, a full three weeks before the start of shooting for Airplane! and our casting director had finally had enough. Lloyd Bridges, Robert Stack, Peter Graves and now Leslie … who?

At least audiences had heard of the first three, but this guy — it was true, when it came time to select an actor to play Dr. Rumack, my brother Jerry, Jim Abrahams and I remembered: “This one guy, he’s been in hundreds of television shows, and I think he played the captain of the Poseidon. What’s his name … ?” Our research revealed that the actor’s name was Leslie Nielsen. Jim, Jerry and I were thrilled when he agreed to meet, not because he was “funny” but because of his long résumé of serious films and TV. To us, he was hysterical. The long list of straight dramatic acting roles demonstrated to us that he would be perfect. When we watched those movies, we laughed.

At our first meeting, he mentioned proudly that he had done an episode of M*A*S*H*.

We assured him we wouldn’t count this brief comedy experience against him. But when he read the Airplane! script, he “got” its unconventional nature and offbeat style. We heard later that he told his agent, “Take whatever they offer; I’d pay them to do this.”

Arguably the best role was that of Dr. Rumack, played by the guy no one wanted or ever suspected would be funny, much less go on to have a second career starring in feature films as a goofball comic. Leslie was great in the role because he never “winked” — let on that he knew he was in a comedy. This was essential to the style, and Leslie had a natural instinct for it.

In all the movies we did together, we hardly had to shower him with any verbal praise. He always knew he was doing OK because “I could hear David laughing during the take,” he would say. And I was! Tough to just sit there silently during “Nice beaver!”

Offscreen, he wasn’t so much of a joke or storyteller but a chronic prankster. The stories are legion about the fart machine, which he kept hidden and sprang on any hapless stranger who approached him. He used it on set, on talk shows, anywhere he could find a victim. One time, at a press junket in Charlotte, I remember watching Leslie let loose with the device on a crowded elevator, the other occupants squirming up against the walls in an effort to distance themselves. And just like the scenes we put him in, he never broke character, never let on that he knew he was being funny.

Leslie got the biggest kick out of his newfound status as an international comedy icon — almost as though that, too, was some kind of prank he had pulled. But mostly, he just really loved to laugh. Doing goofy things on and off the set made him happy, which was almost always his demeanor. And in turn, he made all of us happy. I think we all got along so well because we were all anarchists at heart — grown-up kids who still got the giggles from poking fun at authority figures.

As the years went on, I always tried to find a place for him in whatever movie I was doing. And he was always delighted to accept. And when each movie came out, he always turned out to be the funniest thing in it. A director couldn’t ask for a better track record.

In the movie business, friendships tend to be intense — and brief. You live with someone every day for three months, and then, despite promises of keeping in touch, getting together, calling, you go back to your separate and individual lives. Looking back on it, I think I wanted Leslie to know that we valued him beyond that — and how much we all appreciated him, as a talented performer and a friend.

We invariably would get to discussing our history together, reminiscing a bit and renewing our good-natured debate about who the hell was luckier to have met the other, Leslie Nielsen or the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker team. The truth was, all of us knew how grateful we were to have each other in our lives, both professionally and personally, and we expressed it to each other often.

Leslie was grateful for everything in his life (most especially his wife Barbaree), almost as though he didn’t feel he deserved any of it. Maybe that’s why he was so happy.

And maybe that’s why he was so good at making everyone else happy.

I was tempted to make a trip to see the new Harry Potter movie (a series a have little interest in) just to catch the above trailer. That’s how much I’m looking forward to this movie and said trailer, released yesterday, is just adding to that excitement. The short glimpses we get of Sinestro, Tomar-Re and Kilowog are nothing short of amazing. There’s some questionable CG in places but there’s plenty of time until the June 17 release date for those to be ironed out. And check out the Star Sapphire logo on Carol Ferris’ helmet. Gotta love those easter eggs.

I cannot wait.

UPDATE: The video I embedded was taken down from YouTube so just watch the trailer directly from Apple’s site (if you haven’t already).