Iron Man 2

Like its predecessor, Iron Man 2 officially kicks off the summer movie season. Some of the biggest stars in Hollywood suited up for this comic book movie adaptation, but did it live up to the amazingly high standards set by the first film?

[Extremely minor spoilers from this point on.]

Iron Man 2

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Mickey Rourke, Sam Rockwell, Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Scarlett Johansson, and Samuel L. Jackson

I think Iron Man 2 suffered from a case of overactive marketing. Add up all of the various trailers and television spots for this movie, and it basically takes us chronologically scene by scene through the entire film. There's no sense of wonder that the first film evoked, no mystery left for us to discover. If you go back and rewatch the first Iron Man trailer, you'll see that they don't actually show Stark doing much in the traditional Iron Man suit except flying. This time around, they took the exact opposite approach: by showing us every action scene in the trailer, the audience is unable to connect with the story and is instead left playing the "well, we know where this is going" game.

Sure, you could argue that in today's over-saturated media marketplace, we're bound to see big scenes in trailers and TV spots. But IM2 showed its hand early, giving away all its secrets and (if you'll allow the continued metaphor) leaving the final trick to fall a bit flat since all the magic had been revealed. Even if they had just left us one surprise (Iron Man's slick new suitcase suit at the end of the grand prix scene, for example), perhaps it would have been enough for us to again experience that magical feeling the first film captured so well. The marketing department even went as far as to show us a scene in the trailer that didn't make it into the final cut of the film ("you complete me"), and somehow they STILL had time to reveal all of the big scenes for us before we walked into the theater.

For me, the film felt like a series of missed opportunities. The only reason we know Mickey Rourke's character's name is Whiplash is through press releases and plot synopses before the movie came out. The word "Whiplash" is never spoken once in the entire movie. There was also no mention of the Ten Rings organization, the terrorist group responsible for Stark's capture in the first film. With the way the original ended (the leader of that group still at large), I figured there would at least be a passing reference to their surely-nefarious activities (similar to the Scarecrow's cameo in The Dark Knight), if not a full-on exploration into their plans in the wake of Iron Man's rise to power.

Speaking of exploration, perhaps the biggest missed opportunity in the movie was the lack of exploration into the Pepper Potts character. I've never been a big fan of Gwyneth Paltrow, but she's very likable as this character and provides a good counter-point to Stark's ridiculous eccentricity. In the film, Tony makes Pepper the CEO of Stark Industries, which is a great chance to further explore her character and see how she reacts to the responsibilities thrust upon her. Instead, Pepper becomes perhaps the most marginalized character in the film, relegated to just one or two scenes in which all she does to convey her newfound authority is hurriedly speak to someone on the phone. By the end, she has resigned from her position, but we are never given a clear indication about the future of Stark Industries; is Tony back as the CEO, or does the job still belong to Pepper? Favreau is content with zooming out while they're having this discussion, and the question is left unanswered. (Granted, from what we've seen so far, Tony's duties as CEO took a backseat to his work as Iron Man so it's not REALLY that important an issue - but a bit of clarification would have been nice.)

The character of Tony Stark has been altered dramatically. In the six months between the events of the first film and the start of this one, Stark's cockiness has been brought to its logical conclusion. He's revealed to the world that he's Iron Man, which is seemingly enough to justify him turning into a total jackass. His trademark swagger and witty banter seems much more malicious here, and Stark seems almost vindictive, going out of his way to bring people down and make them look like idiots all around him. There's also the alcohol abuse: not the full-on "Demon in a Bottle" examination once rumored for the project, but instead a birthday party scene which is basically an excuse for an excessive amount of useless CGI fighting between Iron Man and War Machine. The entire depiction of Stark reminded me of the titular character in Rocky III: high from his heavyweight titles, overexposed, and an altered version of the lovable boxer we saw in previous films.


While the movie doesn't quite venture into Spider-Man 3 territory, it does introduce multiple new characters and features two new villains. Mickey Rourke plays Ivan Vanko, a Russian expatriate with an inexplicable affinity for cockatoos and a Stark-like ability to engineer electronics and robotics. Considering Vanko was raised in Russia by a drunk, his talent is theoretically more impressive than that of Tony Stark, who, while a notable child prodigy, was unquestionably raised in an environment more conducive to their brand of sophisticated technical knowledge. It's too bad Iron Man 2 isn't interested in exploring these theoretical situations; instead of being an interesting character, Vanko is depicted as an essentially mute guy who, while certainly looking the part of a villain, is actually a pretty terrible one. Rourke doesn't help matters any as an actor, imbuing Vanko with about as much personality as my computer desk and, in his opening scene, going so far over the top with his bellowing yell that it elicited laughter from me instead of sympathy.


Sam Rockwell (fresh in my mind from his fantastic performance in 2009's Moon) fared a bit better as Justin Hammer, Stark's industrial rival and the Negaduck to Stark's Darkwing. He was also a bit over the top, but that trait seemed to fit better with his character. An egomaniac obsessed with beating Iron Man at his own game, Hammer is a charismatic dude (with some sweet dance moves) who spends practically half of the movie picking up Tony's sloppy seconds (including that "piece from Vanity Fair"). He might be a bit crazy, but he just wants to one-up Stark in any way possible, so he thinks teaming up with Vanko will be the solution to his problems. I'll avoid any big spoilers, but it's safe to say that Vanko is a bit smarter than he appears.


Don Cheadle replaces Terrence Howard as James "Rhodey" Rhodes this time around, and I thought he filled the role without missing a beat. While I prefer Howard's depiction of the character, Cheadle more than held his own and was easily capable of acting against Downey. And yes, as we saw exhaustively in the trailer, War Machine is featured pretty heavily in Iron Man 2. Cheadle seems to have fun with the character, but Howard's smirk when he says "next time" to the silver suit in the original film makes me a bit sad that he wasn't able to fulfill his own prophesy.


The most surprising part of the film was Scarlett Johansson, who actually wasn't bad as Black Widow. Let's face it - she's got the looks, but she doesn't always deliver in the acting department. She doesn't have many lines here, but her delivery was sincere and I bought her in the role. She definitely has the physicality for the little bit of action the character performs (also given away in the trailer), a "female kicking ass in a hallway" scene thematically similar to a scene we just saw in Matthew Vaughn's Kick-Ass but not nearly as brutal. Despite some strange directorial choices in that scene with regards to overhead shots and distracting editing, she still comes out with the desired effect: looking badass.


In keeping with the "missed opportunities" theme, we have a small appearance by Samuel L. Jackson as S.H.I.E.L.D. chief Nick Fury, who guides Stark in the right direction for one or two scenes and then is absent for the rest of the movie. I realize he's a minor character, but I would like to see a brief diversion into that character's mind and gotten to know him a little bit. He's going to pop up in other Marvel films until The Avengers comes out, but until then he'll most likely be seen in a small capacity like this and I doubt any screenwriter will devote enough time to get to know this character when they've got a huge hero to build their stories around. When you think about it, we know almost the same now about the Avenger Initiative as we did with Fury's brief post-credits mention of it at the end of the original Iron Man. We hear that Iron Man is recommended for a slot on the team, but Tony Stark is not - and then we aren't allowed any further insight into the potential consequences of what that might mean.


Maybe it's just me, but I felt like this entire movie was not as well-directed as the first one - strange, considering Jon Favreau was at the helm for both entries. In Iron Man 2, there is a long list of decisions that I simply didn't agree with. The first-person POV scene walking through the crowd was dizzying and unnecessary, as were the wild camera movements in our introduction to Iron Man right before he lands at the Stark Expo. Instead of locking down the camera like he did in that cool shot during Stark's first flight over the Santa Monica Pier and the Ferris wheel in the original movie, Favreau chooses to spin the camera around as Iron Man freefalls toward the ground, jarringly swinging in close to him and then far away again with no particular rhyme or reason.

I also had some issues with the Monaco race scene. Apart from the opening establishing shot of Monaco - a Dark Knight-esque helicopter shot that gorgeously reveals the layout of the city below - I thought the whole race sequence was not very well done at all. There wasn't a single POV shot from the front of the car, which seems like a no-brainer if you're trying to convey the feeling Stark is having of speeding down the track. Instead, Favreau places the camera high above the action and we look down on it passively and detached from the action. The sense of speed was poorly translated, which was yet another missed opportunity since we don't see Indy car races in film very often.

Let's also not forget that Whiplash destroys a car, and then - with no protection, mind you - is literally engulfed in flames as he pulls a "cool guys don't look at explosions" and walks out unscathed on the other end. What was his endgame there? In yet another comparison to The Dark Knight (I know, I know, but they just keep coming to me), The Joker allowed himself to be captured, setting up that great jail interrogation scene but also thinking ahead enough to engineer his own escape. Writer Justin Theroux tries to emulate that pattern, but falls short when we realize that Whiplash just wants to "make God bleed" and...that's it. He's got no game plan after that, he's just hoping that someone else who hates Iron Man will bust him out of prison. Of course, Justin Hammer plays right into his hands, but Whiplash's plan seems much more thrown together than the calculated brilliance of The Joker's.

This brings up perhaps my most basic criticism of the movie. If Whiplash's tentacles are approximately 20 feet long, why doesn't Iron Man, I don't know, just take a few steps back? Or maybe - and bear with me here, because I realize this suggestion might be too unbelievable - maybe he could freaking FLY AROUND HIM blasting Whiplash with pulse beams all day long while he swings in vain down on the ground. I can't comprehend how someone as "smart" as Tony Stark would see that the guy has a limited reach and say, "you know what? I'm going to get in close with this dude and see how that works out for me." Mind-boggling.


I know if I was still a kid, I'd love this movie simply because it has more Iron Man fight scenes than the first one. But that argument no longer holds true for me now that I'm an adult. It's the same feeling I got when watching Louis Letterier's The Incredible Hulk - I enjoyed the sequences with Ed Norton as Bruce Banner far more than I did watching a CGI Hulk smashing things. Comic book films have done a great job of locking down A-list dramatic actors in the past few years, and my theory is we should be allowed to watch them work. Let them earn their massive paychecks.

To be fair, you'll have to take that last paragraph with a grain of salt. I'll admit (as I did in my review of the first film) that I've never read an Iron Man comic or been a fan of the character before I saw Favreau's 2008 movie, so perhaps I'd have been more excited to see a CGI Iron Man blowing up CGI drones if I were passionate about the character and grew up imagining these sequences on the big screen. But since that isn't the case for me personally, I ended up coming down a bit hard on this film.

Despite my criticisms, I'd still recommend checking this out. It's not terrible, but I just had a lot of issues with it. If you're looking for a good summer action flick, this is definitely a good place to start, and I'd even say it's worth seeing in theaters (if you catch a matinée). But when Marvel follows up a great first film with a mediocre second one, they shouldn't be surprised to hear vocal disappointment from fans and critics alike. Turn off your hype machines, lower your expectations, and you'll have a good time. Until next time...

Apocalpyse Now Redux

Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now is one of those classic 70's films that I've wanted to see for a long time, but could never commit enough time to watching. The theatrical version is two hours and thirty-three minutes long, but Apocalypse Now Redux - an extended director's cut, reedited in 2001 - is a ridiculous three hours and twenty-two minutes in length. If you've seen either movie and are interested in the differences between the two cuts, Wikipedia covers them pretty extensively. I had nothing to do today, so naturally I decided to go big or go home.

Apocalypse Now Redux
Co-written and Directed By: Francis Ford Coppola
Starring: Martin Sheen, Marlon Brando, Robert Duvall, Laurence Fishburne


Although I've actually seen more of Coppola's filmography than I previously thought, I wouldn't by any means classify myself as a Coppola expert. If I had to choose, The Conversation would be my favorite film of his. That's just a bit of background info for you, letting you know where I stood coming into this flick. I'd heard about the insane circumstances surrounding this movie during its troubled production (chronicled in Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, a documentary I hope to see very soon), and I'll admit that those stories, not some admirable respect for Coppola's work, were the catalyst for me wanting to see this film. I wanted to see if this was the 1970's version of Cleopatra, another film with legendary behind-the-scenes problems which ultimately cemented the movie as one of Hollywood's largest cinematic failures. For the record, I don't think Apocalypse Now Redux belongs in the same category as Cleopatra; this extended version is an intellectual look at the psychology of war, mirroring many of the messages of Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" novella on which Apocalypse Now is based.


The movie follows Captain Willard (Sheen) as he searches for Colonel Kurtz (Brando), a supposedly insane military officer gone rouge in the jungles of Cambodia during Vietnam. Willard is borderline crazy himself; he returned home and found he couldn't cope with normal society, eventually divorcing his wife and coming back to the military. When he receives orders to eliminate Kurtz, he "took the mission, because what the hell else was [he] going to do?" What follows is a dizzying depiction of the toils of war, a quest with stops along the way reminiscent of an ancient Greek epic.


All of the acting in this movie was astoundingly good, especially considering the circumstances the actors were enduring at the time of filming. Martin Sheen gave the best performance of anything I've seen him in, defining the prototype for a cinematic Vietnam soldier that influenced countless other films (including my favorite Vietnam film and one that starred Sheen's son Charlie, Oliver Stone's Platoon). You can see his influence in non-war related films too; Robert Carlyle's character in The Beach was clearly channeling a crazier version of Sheen, and I'd venture to say that Willard and John Rambo would share some of the same philosophies. Brando - famously showing up overweight and unprepared - was captivating as the almost-mystical Kurtz, floating in and out of the shadows as mysteriously as the character's history. And the always-excellent Robert Duvall played perhaps the strangest character in the film: a surfing-obsessed lieutenant colonel who doesn't flinch in the midst of war and is only concerned about finishing his task quickly so he can get back to surfing.


Harrison Ford barely registers as a blip on the radar, disappointingly showing up for under ten minutes as one of the officers who gave Willard his orders. A young Laurence Fishburne exuberantly plays "Mr. Clean," a soldier on Willard's ship as they travel deeper down the river. Albert Hall - whom many of us would recognize as the coach of the Chicago Cubs in the baseball classic Rookie of the Year - was fantastic as the ship's captain, Chief. And Dennis Hopper shows up near the end, as a rambling American photographer snapping pictures of Kurtz's camp. Side bar: Dennis Hopper has played so many crazy characters that I'm starting to believe he might actually be insane in real life.

But how was the movie itself? The Odyssey-esque parallels were interesting at first, but quickly tried my patience with drawn-out scenes seemingly irrelevant to the main plot. One of these, a dinner scene at an inexplicable French plantation along the river (?), struck me as almost wholly unnecessary to the entire movie: yes, there was some veiled commentary about America's role in the war, but the fact that the film is, you know, A WAR MOVIE already illustrates those sentiments pretty damn effectively. After an implied sex scene with a member of the family (featuring some of the cheesiest music I've heard in a long time), Willard is back on the metaphorical road with no mention of the event for the rest of the film. There were also two separate instances in which Willard asks young men to identify their commanding officer, and both times they either blow him off or assume that HE was their commanding officer. We get it, Francis - Vietnam was wild, chaotic, and lawless. I'm not trying to downplay the events of real life, I'm just saying there's no need to replicate the same theme twice, especially in a three and a half hour cut of the movie.


The cinematography and editing were almost completely responsible for the film's eerie vibe, using lighting in ways similar to a film noir toward the conclusion. Another noir archetype used was the narration of Willard's character throughout the movie, and I'd venture to say this was some of the most effective voice over work I've ever heard. The tone, the delivery, the cadence - everything fit perfectly with the character and provided the audience with a look into his thought process as he tries to retrace Kurtz's path and discover his motivations. The editing was a bit showy at times, erring on the side of the excessive when it came to superimposing images over each other and crossfading into similar shapes (ex: a human eye fades into the eye of a stone idol).


In any case, this movie is widely considered a masterpiece and I'd be hard pressed to fully disagree. I can nitpick things here and there, but the passion and determination it took to get this film made is on full display in every frame of the final movie. Coppola's uncompromised vision is a great piece of storytelling, told with style, flair, and a sense of importance that doesn't ever seem mismatched with the events of the plot.


So is it worth seeing? If you consider yourself a cinephile, it's probably required viewing. If you're looking for something fun to watch at home, this one isn't for you. I'd wager that most of the people reading this blog won't care for it too much, if not because of its sometimes heavy-handed messages then for its ludicrously long length. That being said, I think I enjoyed the movie a bit more than this review would indicate, so if you're on the fence about seeing it, I'd say take the plunge and check it out. It's worth watching, and I'm sure most of you will at least dig the iconic "Rise of the Valkyries" helicopter assault. Until next time...

The Collector

A Panther Joe Misdemeanor

Director: Marcus Dunstan
Starring: Josh Stewart, Karley Scott Collins, Juan Fernandez
Release: Summer 2009

Horror fans rejoice! The Collector is an American-style horror/thriller that brings in several keystone elements of the genre and overlays them on a story that reminds you of one of those too-weird-to-be-true stories that were popular several decades ago.

Arkin (Josh Stewart) desperately needs money. It is supposed to be for his wife who owes money to loan sharks but it could have easily been several other problematic debts. He determines the best way to obtain the dough is to rob one of his customers, a jewel broker who lives in a secluded country house. Arkin is a handyman and has been working on the family's house for a while and has ascertained the owner has a jewel in a safe that will more than repay his wife's debt.

This is the point of the movie things just start getting bizarre. His plan to rob the safe is interrupted when he discovers another intruder in the house with much more sinister plans. Sinister as in torture and intricate booby traps. Now Arkin doesn't seem like such a bad guy but more like the only hope this poor family has for survival.

The synopsis tells you of the booby-trapped house and whatnot, but as I was swimming further into this flick I was thinking one thing: Saw. And then after the movie I read this tidbit:

"Originally titled The Midnight Man, the script was originally intended to be a Saw prequel, but the producers were against the idea and quickly dismissed it." source via Wiki

SPOILERS AND WTF? RAMBLINGS AHEAD!

I really enjoyed the aspect that this wasn't a ripoff of the Saw franchise but was cut from the same cloth. The viewer is treated to a labyrinth of deadly traps and a cool birds-eye-view depiction of the cat and mouse game that is Arkin eluding The Collector. It was as if they cut off the roof of the house and we see Arkin darting through various rooms while The Collector is investigating. 

The only hangup I had with this movie, albeit a 700-pound gorilla sized hangup, was the set-up for the whole movie. We are to believe all this takes place in one day, which starts with Arkin and others working on the house before the family leaves on vacation. Later in the night, Arkin comes back to rob the place only to be ambushed with the endless booby traps. Think Home Alone but the trap expert has ten times the budget and twenty times the direction. 

The reason I say this is because we see the family has clearly been kidnapped and tied up, which would essentially make the traps useless. The only thing I can think of is he kidnapped the family as they were departing for vacation, brought them back and turned their house into a live action Mouse Trap. 

That kind of makes sense, but it is also clear The Collector has no idea where the two daughters are, whether somewhere in the large house or out doing teenage stuff, like hazing in the cornfields. Either way, his angle was to keep things contained or from keeping intruders out, which really says something about his kidnapping self-esteem. 

END SPOILERS

The acting was nothing special but appropriate for the setting. The little girl reminded me of Dakota Fanning and the killer kept us in suspense with his sweeping movements and creepy mask. A nod goes to Josh Stewart for pulling off the down-on-his-luck country boy turned hero role. Upon first seeing Stewart in the movie I had recognized him immediately as the guy who knocked up my favorite character on Criminal Minds, Agent Jennifer Jareau, lopping off about 500 joules off her hotness factor. To say I already hated the protagonist because of this wouldn't be a lie. 

Fans of realistic horror will more than likely enjoy this film. It has a little bit of everything--gore in moderation, the quick set-up with disposable characters, the who-dunnit factor, and excess female nudity. I have to say I enjoyed the ending mostly because it was unexpected. Far too many times these endings are like that of a rollercoaster where you are gently shuffled back to whence you came and think that because of the oh-so-many zany twists and turns you experienced throughout the ride you need a cooling off...

but that's why they call this guy "The Collector."

Summer Movie Preview 2010

I thought I'd throw together a little Summer Movie Preview to A) let you know what's coming out over the next few months and B) give you my thoughts on what I'm looking forward to. This is a new feature I hope to start doing here (Fall Movie Preview, etc.), so grab your calendars and mark those dates along the way.

MAY

Iron Man 2 - May 7th: Locking down the same "first weekend in May" release slot as the original, Jon Favreau's Iron Man 2 effectively kicks off the summer. Robert Downey, Jr. returns as Tony Stark in the highly-anticipated follow-up to the spectacular Iron Man. The buzz on this project has been incredibly varied for the past few months, and as we approach the release date (which is only two and a half weeks away as I type), word of mouth seems to be on a positive upswing. Here's hoping this film can capture the tone of the original and not succumb to Spider-Man 3 syndrome (read: too many characters involved).

Robin Hood - May 14th: Look, it's obvious to everyone that this looks like Gladiator 2. But I'm willing to give director Ridley Scott the benefit of the doubt on this one; he's directed these period pieces before (2005's Kingdom of Heaven, most recently) and I honestly believe that he wouldn't be returning to the genre if he didn't have something original to contribute. These projects are too expansive and exhausting to be a cash grab, and this production in particular has a troubled history (one which I'll detail if I review the film). I don't think this will be the best movie of the summer by a long shot, but I think it'll definitely be watchable.

MacGruber - May 21st: I've never seen the MacGruber sketch on Saturday Night Live, so unless I score some sort of free screening to this movie there's no way I'm seeing it. Val Kilmer's presence is almost enough to change my mind, but not quite. That being said, this film obviously doesn't take itself seriously and might be a fun ride for fans of the sketch.

Shrek: Forever After - May 21st: There's no way I'm seeing this. This franchise should have ended years ago.

Sex and the City 2 - May 27th: Someone explain to me why these women are in Dubai or wherever the hell they are. Never mind - I don't care.

Prince of Persia: Sands of Time - May 28th: Mike Newell may be a respected director, and I may have played (and enjoyed) the old school PC game and two of the four new releases for the next generation consoles, but the horrific miscasting of Jake Gyllenhaal combined with Bruckheimer's signature style in all the wrong ways tells me to avoid this at all costs. The buzz on this one is not good, so I'm probably going to sit it out and - maybe - wait for the DVD.

JUNE

Get Him To The Greek - June 4th: The spiritual sequel to Forgetting Sarah Marshall features Russell Brand reprising his hilarious role as British rocker Aldous Snow in this comedy from Universal Pictures. Jonah Hill (NOT reprising his Sarah Marshall character) plays a record label intern tasked with the titular job, and craziness ensues on their quest to arrive at the Greek Theater in Los Angeles. I'm actually looking forward to this one - Sarah Marshall director Nicholas Stoller wrote and directed this film, so I'm sure it will have similar sensibilities (and hopefully a Kristen Bell cameo).

Killers - June 4th: This cinematic pile of potential garbage stars two of the least interesting people in Hollywood right now: Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl. If this movie was made in 2003 or 2004, it may have been watchable. But now, after Mr. and Mrs. Smith and so many other similar movies already released? I think I'll pass.

The A-Team - June 11th: I wasn't on board with this film after seeing the teaser trailer, but after seeing the full-length cut, I think I'm sold. Jessica Biel (me-YOW) actually delivers the following line: "They specialize in the ridiculous!" Obviously we know what kind of movie this is going to be, and with a cast that features Liam Neeson, The Hangover's Bradley Cooper, and District 9's Sharlto Copley, you can count me in for the absolute insanity we're sure to see on the big screen.

The Karate Kid - June 11th: As soon as this project was announced, I knew I had no interest. Some of you may feel differently, and that's the only reason I've included this movie. Jackie Chan as Mr. Miyagi? Sorry dude - you can definitely kick ass, but you're no Pat Morita. And I'll reiterate the vocal cry collectively raised by the internet since the day we heard the project was announced: this film is set in China. They do kung fu in China. They do karate in Japan. This should be called The Kung Fu Kid. Actually, this project probably shouldn't exist at all. Go back and watch the original; Elisabeth Shue is worth the re-watch.

Jonah Hex - June 18th: Another film with a troubled history, this one has been getting some really awful buzz lately. Based on the comic of which I've read a few (thanks Jared), Jonah Hex is essentially an Eastwood-esque cowboy who wanders through the Old West kicking ass and getting all kinds of revenge. Rumors of the inclusion of supernatural elements coupled with this film being the live-action directorial debut of director Jimmy Hayward have me more than a bit wary, not to mention the fact that it's halfway through April and we haven't seen any footage yet. Tread carefully with this one, but the "Josh Brolin vs. John Malkovich" factor may be enough to put it over the edge.

Toy Story 3 - June 18th: Pixar's next animated film will be good, I'm sure - but that doesn't mean I plan on seeing it. We grew up with Toy Story, but I feel like I've outgrown these characters. A third film just seems like a retread. I've heard fantastic things about the final 30 minutes of the movie, so maybe I'm wrong. But I just don't have much interest in revisiting Buzz, Woody, and the rest of the gang anymore.

Knight and Day - June 25th: Now this is a film I'm looking forward to. Tom Cruise is back, and this time it appears as if he's fully aware of the public perception of him as a crazy man. If his performance in the trailer is any indication of the tone of this movie, I'm going to absolutely love it. He's wild ("I'm the guy!") and outrageous, and if I can just get past the fact that Cameron Diaz is in this movie, I'll be good to go.

Twilight Saga: Eclipse - June 30th: Is it time for another one of these already? Yeesh.

JULY

The Last Airbender - July 2nd: M. Night Shyamalan hasn't made it easy to be one of his supporters with his past few directorial efforts, but I'm still holding out hope that he can bring something interesting to the table. This film, based on a well-loved cartoon, has been drawing racial controversies over the casting of the lead characters, but since I've never seen the original show I have nothing on which to base my perception. Even though I consider myself a fan of Night, I still might not see this one in theaters.

Predators - July 7th: Nimrod Antal's Predators looks like the Predator sequel we should have gotten back in the last 1980's. Robert Rodriguez is producing the film, and even though there's some bizarre casting going on here (Adrien Brody, Laurence Fishburne, Topher Grace), I think this one could be just enough to hold action fans over until The Expendables.

The Sorcerer's Apprentice - July 16th: Nic Cage as a sorcerer teaching Jay Baruchel the art of magic? As awesome as Cage was in Kick-Ass, I'll probably sit this one out as well.

Inception - July 16th: Hands down my most anticipated film of the summer (and arguably the year). I fully expect for this to be one of my favorite movies of all time - which I realize is a mind-boggling amount of pressure to put on any film - but I'm confident that Chris Nolan, DiCaprio, and Co. can rise to the occasion.

Dinner for Schmucks - July 23rd: I like Steve Carell, and I like Paul Rudd. But I just don't think this movie looks very funny.

Salt - July 23rd: Tom Cruise was attached to this film and ended up dropping out. The film was re-worked for Angelina Jolie, but watching the trailer it's obvious that they didn't do too much altering to the script; this still feels very much like a Tom Cruise movie. Looks cool to me, so I'll probably see it.

AUGUST

The Other Guys - August 6th: The latest film from director Adam McKay sounds like a concept I came up with years ago: what is it like to live in the same world as a supercop? Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg play regular police officers in the same precinct as two supercops played by Samuel L. Jackson and Dwayne Johnson. I'm glad to see Ferrell continuing to stay away from sports-themed comedies since he overdosed on those a few years back, and this looks like a worthy follow-up to Step Brothers.

The Expendables - August 13th: I've written about this project before, and I've yet to see a trailer for the movie. But I'm sure it'll be awesome.

Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - August 13th: The teaser trailer for this film is one of my favorite teasers in recent memory, and after reading the fantastic source material on which this film is based, I'm totally sold on this movie. The casting is absolute perfection, and Edgar Wright looks like he could provide a real game-changer with this movie. I can't wait.

Now you can respond with some real answers when your friends ask you, "what movies are coming out this summer?" I'll keep you updated along the way, and maybe I'll do a little recap at the end to compare my predictions with my actual reactions. As always, thanks for reading. Until next time...