"Fix it!"

Today I was chatting with a friend I haven't seen in many years who is tangentially aware of my subsequent status as a film blogger of some note. The conversation, which was 100% not about movies, suddenly took an abrupt turn...

(I'm in green)

LOL. If only...

He went on to request the immediate ceasing of all television and film productions involving zombies, vampires, teen zombies, teen vampires, teen anything, aliens, reboots, movies with any numerals. (FWIW this person is a SAG voter.) 

Reviews: Monsters University & World War Z

This double feature review was originally posted in my column at Towleroad

Another Month. Another Apocalypse

If the world can be powered by screams, as Monsters, Inc and its new prequel MONSTERS UNIVERSITY claim, then we've surely got a surplus to run on for decades to come. The horror genre in all its shapes, sizes and moods (including children's film) has rarely, if ever, been more popular. Brad Pitt warns a surely soon-to-be zombified family in WORLD WAR Z who have holed up in their apartment that "movement is life". They should run! But where are they supposed to run exactly? Zombies, werewolves, vampires, serial killers, and monsters are everywhere on film and television. Even outside the horror genre, dystopias (Hunger Games anyone?) or apocalypse awaits; at some point every superhero and action movie now blows its (budget) load on laying waste to New York City and/or its counterparts across the Globe. If pop culture is mass catharsis for our intangible mood, than we are all terrified children and in need of much therapy. 

Apologies for the armchair psychology but this must surely be why we've made our zombies crush-worthy (Warm Bodiesjust arrived from Netflix as I was typing this, no joke, - Hiiii, Nic Hoult!), our vampires twinkly, and our monsters cuddly. I mean just look at this guy "Art" to your left! He's practically built for wrap-around hugs... 

[More on cuddly monsters and Brad-chasing zombies...]

Click to read more ...

Those Who Have Gone "Before"

Hi all, it’s Tim, here on the eve of what is, by far, my most-anticipated summer release of 2013. Not, shockingly, The Hangover, Part III. Not even Epic. No, like most right-thinking people, 2013 for me is all about Before Midnight, the third film in one of cinema’s most unlikely series, in which we revisit lovers Celine (Julie Delpy) and Jesse (Ethan Hawke) every nine years to see what they’ve been up to. The first time we met them in Before Sunrise, they met by accident on a train into Vienna, then in Before Sunset they had an afternoon to walk around Paris, and in this third entry- I have no idea, I’m on completely spoiler lockdown with this film, to the level where I won’t even look at the poster. But I’m willing to guarantee that whatever they’re up to, it’s going to have some very deep resonance and profound truth to speak about the lifespan of romantic relationships.

For the benefit of anyone who hasn’t had the chance to see the earlier movies yet – please change that as soon as possible, I beg you – or to get series veterans riled up for its imminent return (like that’s even necessary), I wanted to share five reasons that, for me, the first two Before… movies are some of the finest romantic dramas in the history of cinema. [more...]

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: The Dumbing Down of Star Trek

Did you see "Into Darkness" this weekend?Hey everybody. Michael C. here. 

When the Trekkies complain that the JJ Abrams reboot had abandoned the spirit of the franchise, I understand their point. I am certainly no Trekkie (or do they prefer Trekker? See, I have no idea.) But I was raised on Star Trek: TNG, and while that show was never a gateway drug to the larger Trek universe, it did instill a respect for what the brand could be at its best. Its combination of exploration adventure, an optimistic portrait of the future, and Bradbury-esque ethical conundrums is a potent mix when it’s firing on all cylinders.

So I sympathize when the die-hard fans accuse Abrams of gutting the heart out of the franchise and stuffing the shell with streamlined, box office friendly action. Sure the ship is still the Enterprise, and Kirk and Spock are still at the helm, but is it still Star Trek? 

At the same time, as a movie fan first and foremost, I also felt the thing to do is judge the movie on its own terms. Should I deny I had a good time at a film because it didn’t meet my preconceived notions of what constitutes a Star Trek movie?

Now that Star Trek: Into Darkness has delivered more of the same hyper-charged fun and kicked off the debate again (Headline from Vulture: Prepare to be Bombarded Into Happiness) I think it’s about time I resolved the issue. Just how upset should I be about the dumbing down of Star Trek? 

Click to read more ...

Burning Questions: Can a Bad Sequel Diminish a Classic?

Michael C here. When you tune in to the movie chatter frequency one of unavoidable refrains you hear is that such and such sequel has spoiled a classic film. You know the drill. Part III forever tarnished The Godfather, turning a perfect two-part saga into a disappointing, lopsided trilogy. Oliver Stone ruined Gordon Gekko by dragging him out for a belated encore.  “Blah blah Jim Carrey blah blah The Grinch blah blah blah MY CHILDHOOD!”  

And so on.

This chorus was most recently heard lamenting the way Oz the Great and Powerful helped itself to a box office bonanza by trampling the sterling legacy of the Judy Garland classic. Next it will be Evil Dead’s turn to besmirch the memory of a cult classic. Amid all outraged accusations of violence towards film history shouldn’t we stop to consider if the basic idea has merit? Can an inferior sequel actually diminish the standing of a classic? 

Let me state right up front my answer is a firm “No, it can’t.” Except when it can. Let me back up...

Click to read more ...