Ten Things I’d love to see Happen at this year’s Academy Awards

With the 82nd Annual Academy Awards less than a week away, I’ve been thinking about to expect: a lavish opening musical number, witty banter between the show’s two co-hosts, Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, overlong acceptance speeches interrupted by orchestra music, among things. Here are some moments I’m hoping for at this year’s Academy Awards:

1) After accepting the first award of the night for Avatar, James Cameron moves to the side of the stage, and tells the presenters for the next movie “I’ll just wait here.”

2) While presenting the award for “Best Editing,” Megan Fox blames the failure of Jennifer’s Body on screenwriter Diablo Cody and Director Karyn Kusama, and then literally tries to stick her foot in her mouth.

3) The Coen Brothers, accepting the “Best Original Screenplay” award for A Serious Man, thank the Academy for not confusing their film with A Single Man, I Love You, Man, or any other movie with “man” in the title.

4) Kodak Theatre security surrounds Kanye West in the event Mo’Nique doesn’t win for Precious.

5) Vince Vaughn becomes the first winner in the Academy’s newest category, “Best Actor Playing Himself,” for Couples Retreat.

6) Kristen Stewart wins the award for “Best Angsty Glare.”

7) After presenting the award for “Best Actress,” Morgan Freeman proceeds to narrate the remainder of the show.

8) Mel Gibson approaches the stage to accept the “Best Actor” award for Edge of Darkness, only to be told that it was neither released in 2009 nor was he even nominated. Upon being escorted off the stage, Gibson shoots a dirty look at the Coen Brothers.

9) The Academy pulls District 9 from the consideration upon learning it was a science-fiction movie everyone has seen and actually liked.

10) After Kathryn Bigelow accepts the Best Picture Award for The Hurt Locker, she jokingly quips “I’m queen of the world,” then awkwardly looks at James Cameron, “at least I used to be.”

Poster Review – A Nightmare on Elm Street (2010)

The new poster for the remake of A Nightmare on Elm Street is pretty much just the teaser poster with words, and that wasn’t a particularly striking image in the first place. The image relies heavily on the iconography of its main character, Freddy Krueger (played now by Oscar nominee, Jackie Earle Haley, no stranger to playing tormented loons).

The problem here is that’s there’s nothing to indicate that this is a flashy remake and not a sequel. You wouldn’t know that it was a different actor playing him (not that Haley’s crispy mug would be much of a selling point).

I do like that they’re trying to return the character to the grotesque mystique of the original, where you could catch only shadowy glances of his hideousness. The tip of one sparkling blade is a nice touch, as are the vague traces of green and red on the sweater.

But the tagline, “Welcome to your new nightmare” is trying to say “This Ain’t Your Daddy’s Freddy,” while showing us something that looks an awful lot like it is.  Similarly, the poster tries to look new while showing us something we’ve seen before. Worse, the tagline directly copies the title of the seventh Freddy movie, New Nightmare.  “Welcome to your new nightmare” kind of makes me want to watch that movie again instead.

Bruce Willis Thinks ‘Die Hard 5’ Will Shoot In 2011

From MTV News:

Since 1988′s “Die Hard,” Bruce Willis has suited up as a crime-solving, justice-bringing, people-protecting badass in nearly 20 movies. While the 54-year-old actor begins to make the rounds to promote his latest turn as an onscreen hero in “Cop Out,” he’s also making plans to return to the franchise that made him a star. MTV News has learned exclusively that Willis expects to shoot “Die Hard 5″ in 2011.

“I think we’re going to do a ‘Die Hard 5′ next year,” Willis told us.

 Though vague chatter about another film in the franchise has cropped up here and there over the last few years — most recently while Willis was promoting “Surrogates” last fall — these recent comments represent the most concrete evidence to date that Willis is committed to reprising his role of John McClane.

The project appears to be in the early phases, but Willis does have some ideas about the story and who should be tagged to direct. “It’s got to go worldwide,” the actor said about the potential plotline. “That would be my contribution to it.”

His first choice to direct would be the man who last brought McClane to the big screen. “I would hire Len Wiseman right now,” Willis said. A vet of two “Underworld” flicks, Wiseman has not helmed a feature since 2007′s “Live Free or Die Hard.”

This news is kind of personal to me, since Die Hard is one of my two favorite movies of all time (the other is Ghostbusters, and incidentally in both William Atherton plays an intrusive prick and Reginald VelJohnson plays a cop, but then again there are a lot of movies in which William Atheron plays a prick and Reginald VelJohnson plays a cop).

The prospect of a Die Hard 5 leaves me conflicted, because part of me thinks they should leave it alone. The big appeal of Live Free or Die Hard was that it was in anticipation for 12 years. All of that buildup went into one movie, and if Die Hard 5 comes out in 2012 or 2013 (five or six years since the last movie), it wouldn’t have that level of anticipation. It would just be anticlimactic.

And the fact that Live Free or Die Hard was somehow as good as the first three was somewhat of a miracle. Rather than risk ruining the franchise, I think they would be smart to quit while they’re ahead.

But who am I kidding? I’d see a Die Hard 5 in a heartbeat. Even though I was terrified that the director of the Underworld snore-fests would ruin my childhood, I was encouraged from learning that he was a huge fan of the first film and practically begged Bruce Willis to direct, not to mention that Willis himself really wanted the right script. It wasn’t just a cash-in. I can only assume that if Willis and Wiseman reunite, the result could very well be another surprisingly good sequel.

It’s all still talk right now, but just like when I hear news of Ghostbusters 3, I shudder twice. Once, out of excitement. Then, out of fear.

Movie Review – 17 Again

In 17 Again, Zac Efron grows up to look like Matthew Perry, an idea impossible and amusing enough to tell you the movie is a fantasy-comedy. The story opens in 1989, and Mike O’Donnell (Efron) is about to lead his high school basketball team to victory. The crowd is cheering, talent scouts are in the crowd taking notice, and Mike’s beautiful girlfriend, Scarlet, is there, seemingly to cheer him on.

No, it isn’t a High School Musical prequel, because Scarlet turns out to be pregnant, and instead of taking the winning shot, Mike ditches the game and dedicates himself fully to her. Twenty years later, and Mike’s glory days are twenty years behind him. He and Scarlet have since married and are about to divorce, his two children (Michelle Trachtenberg and Sterling Knight) can’t stand him, and he’s just been overlooked for a much-deserved promotion.

One night, while driving through the rain, he finds a mysterious janitor (Brian Doyle Murray) readying to jump off a bridge. In an effort to save the janitor, Mike falls off the bridge and into a whirlpool. He survives the fall unscathed, but discovers that he’s now twenty years younger.

Body-switch comedies often tinker with the concept, and here the twist is that Mike has physically regressed yet remains in the present day. He has the opportunity to start his life over, but instead infiltrates his old high school to befriend his kids and be the father he was supposed to be.

One of the keys to the movie’s charm is the selflessness of Mike’s objective. The other, surprisingly, is Zac Efron. I’ve only seen him in the High School Musical trilogy and Hairspray, and maybe it was because both were frenetic musicals and he was lost in the shuffle, but neither was an appropriate showcase for his charisma and comic timing.

In one of the movie’s funniest scenes, Mike attempts to lecture a trio of teen girls throwing themselves at him on the importance of respecting themselves. In scenes like his, Efron isn’t trying to be in on any joke. He believes what he’s saying; the joke is that he’s saying it. I expected to like the movie in spite of his performance, not because of it.

There’s also some very funny writing and a genuine shift towards poignancy in the film’s last act. 

The movie’s message is a simple, one, yes—that sometimes your big plans can change for the better—but instead of writers Jason Filardi and Keenan Donahue clanking it over our heads; they allow the characters to participate in actions that make it authentic.

There are certainly some silly moments—after Mike’s best friend, Ned (Thomas Lennon) discovers his de-aged best friend in his home, he and Mike engage in a duel of lightsabers, Ned bonds with the school’s principal (Melora Hardin) over the Elvish language (one of many fantasy references), there’s a villainous basketball team captain, and apparently Mike’s kids have  never seen an old picture of their dad—among other minor contrivances that never threaten the movie’s appeal. Despite some of its shortcomings, 17 Again is just too likable to dislike.

Rating:

And the non-imees are…

It’s been a while since I posted an update, and I can’t think of a better return than to comment on the 2010 Oscar nominations. But rather than discuss each and every nominee, I thought it would be more interesting to talk about the movies nominated for best picture this year that wouldn’t have been nominated last year. As any cinephile knows, this is the first time since 1943 that there have been ten nominess for best picture instead of the usual five, so this year, by mathematical default, there are five more “dark horses.” In my opinion, here are they are:

 

The Blind Side

There are a lot of reasons why The Blind Side was a sleeper hit, and one of them isn’t because it’s a great movie. It’s because it’s a feel-good movie about football charged by a noteworthy performance from one of most likable female leads in Hollywood—Sandra Bullock—and it scored better reviews than most sports movies.

But it also holds the distinction of being the lowest-rated of the ten nominess, with a decent 70% on RottenTomatoes. By my account, that’s lower than the rating for Youth in Revolt.

 

District 9

True, Neil Blomkamp’s sci-fi allegory was revered as one of the best science-fiction movies ever made, and had one of the most impressive box-office runs of 2009, opening in mid-August to gross $204.8 million worldwide on a budget of $30 million.

But it’s not the first well-received sci-fi movie to be as revered by critics as it was by audiences. The bottom line is that a sci-fi movie hasn’t been nominated for best picture since E.T. The Extra Terrestrial in 1983, and more importantly, a science-fiction movie has never won best picture.

 

Inglorious Basterds

Quentin Tarantino’s films have been critical and audience darlings from his directorial debut, Reservoir Dogs, to Jackie Brown, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, and Death Proof, his half of the Grindhouse double feature. The Kill Bill movies were action-packed, funny, and at times heart-wrenching, yet Tarantino’s only best picture nomination came with Pulp Fiction, his “breakout” hit.

Sure, Basterds was a “war movie,” but it blatantly goofed on historical accuracy, turned the story into a revenge comedy, and was punctuated by Brad Pitt’s loony turn as LT. Aldo Raine.  Everyone may have loved it, but a year ago, the academy wouldn’t have been of them.

 

A Serious Man

The Coen Brothers are no stranger to the Academy. They directed the 2008 best picture of the year, No Country for Old Men, and were nominated in 1997 for Fargo. But what those two had in common were that they, especially No Country, were especially serious, two of the most serious in the Coen cannon, save for Blood Simple, Barton Fink, and Miller’s Crossing.  The Coen Brothers have made their name with films lighter than Fargo, like Raising Arizona, The Hudsucker Proxy, The Big Lebowski, and O Brother, Where Art Thou?, to name a few.

A Serious Man grossed only $20.5 million worldwide, which is more than The Hurt Locker and An Education, but those films were front-runners since their release, and much more serious than a period black comedy.

 

Up

The first animated movie nominated for best picture since Beauty and the Beast in 1992, and the second animated movie nominated nominated for best picture ever, Up was the sixth highest-grossing movie of 2009 and has the highest rating of any nominee on RottenTomatoes—98%—but it’s still a cartoon. And while it was a wonderful film, it wasn’t staggeringly ground-breaking like Beauty and the Beast. One can’t help but feel that this nomination is a slightly tainted victory for animation.

What do you think of my picks for the “non-imees?” Agree? Disagree? A little bit of both, maybe? Let me know.

Movie Review – The Final Destination

I might have tolerated the glee in which the makers of The Final Destination take in comically slaughtering people, if only the movie wasn’t so amateurishly acted, lazily written, and almost completely lacking scares. Unlike its three predecessors, this new entry fails to complement the series’ reputable over-the-top violence with logic, suspense, and convincing performances.

The main titles begin immediately after a woman’s head (and most of her upper torso) is lopped off by a flying, flaming tire amidst an explosive disaster at a racecar track. We soon see that there’s an exaggeratedly jokey, mean-spiritedness about death in the film. Like any mediocre 80s slasher movie, the story is no longer about hoping for the survival of the main characters, but eagerly anticipating their violent deaths.

In every Destination, death not only makes some real progress on its checklist, but for some reason gives a seemingly random character a head’s up on the disaster that’s about to take place. One premonition later, and that character tries to warn everyone to no avail, and then witnesses in horror as their nightmarish vision comes to life.

Why the head’s up? Why, in this film, does it occur only to Nick O’Bannon (Bobby Campo)? Well, because then otherwise the movie would end after the first scene. Or not begin at all. Other than that theory, no reason is given.

But luckily, Nick talks the rest of the characters through the proceedings with some great lines: “I’ve got a bad feeling,” “I have a feeling something bad is going to happen,” “I had a premonition,” and “I had a dream with these images, that were like clues.” Something along those lines. What he’s referring to are the cartoonish computer-generated dream sequences that foreshadow the deaths he’s about to fail at preventing.

It should come as no surprise that even in the face of these premonitions, eerily prophetic dreams, and every survivor of the opening accident being implausibility decimated in freak accidents, that some of the survivors remain skeptical. That’s horror logic for you. I suppose it would be much less scary if one supporting character said “hey, you know…we might have to actually think this one through.” But then they’d be characters, as opposed to pre-packaged corpses.

Rating:

Big screen evolves to compete with small

This past week, I was quoted in The Associated Press in an article about young movie-goers. The article was picked up and featured in over 120 publications, websites, and blogs, including The Chicago Tribune, The Huffington Post, Salon, USA Today, The Washington Post, and many more. Pasted below is the article in its entirety. Check out the third paragraph to see my quote, and let me know what you think.

By MARTHA IRVINE, AP National Writer - Saturday, August 29

 

CHICAGO — Today, young movie-watchers look increasingly like Molly O’Connor. A junior at the University of Dallas, she still goes to the cinema occasionally, but is often just as happy to hunker down on a bed or a couch with friends to watch a downloaded movie on a laptop that’s perched on a nearby desk or a chair.

“Sometimes, it’s nice to have a wider screen, but I don’t think I gain that much by going to a movie theater anymore,” the 20-year-old student says. “Now, it’s more about convenience.”

Or as 26-year-old Michael Brody puts it: “I watch movies the way many people listen to music — anytime, anywhere, any way.” A freelance writer in New York who blogs about film, he used to go to the movie theater every week. Now he’s there once or twice a month, partly to save money and also because he doesn’t think most movies are worth the effort.

Sounds like bad news for movie theaters. But we’re talking about an industry that not only survived, but ended up thriving amid the arrival of television in the 1950s, videotapes in the 1980s, and DVDs in the ’90s. The reason? An ability to continually remake themselves and find new ways to generate revenue, by introducing everything from the multiplex and more elaborate concessions to lengthy pre-show advertising.

Now they’re doing it again.

Step into some of the more modern cinemas these days, and you’ll see increasingly common enticements aimed at keeping the lucrative youth market, even as online video becomes more accessible on sites such as YouTube, Netflix or Hulu — or from movie pirates who steal and distribute movies illegally.

These upgraded theaters’ offerings begin with the super-comfortable seating, even lounge chairs and bean bags in some auditoriums. Add 3-D effects and larger-than-life IMAX blockbusters, made possible by new digital projectors. And then come the midnight movie premieres and opening-night parties.

To boost revenues and appeal, many theaters also are broadcasting live sporting events, operas and symphony performances and hosting in-theater video game competitions on the big screen. Still others are opening in-house restaurants and bars for those old enough to drink alcohol.

It is this century’s answer to the movie palace of old — or the “Broadway-ification” of the movie-going experience, as Charles Acland, professor of communications studies at Concordia University in Montreal, calls it.

“In a nutshell, what you’re going to see is cinema-going aimed at people who go less frequently,” says Acland, author of “Screen Traffic: Movies, Megaplexes and Global Culture.”

It might cost a bit more, he says. “But it will be much more of a special event. People will expect some sort of an experience that you can’t get anywhere else.”

In Europe, cinemas are taking it a step farther by remaking themselves as entertainment destinations — with bowling alleys, karaoke bars, comedy clubs and children’s play areas. Expect that here, too, as well as interior design schemes that appeal to the 18-to-24 set, and that might “dismay” the older crowd, says Toronto-based theater architect David Mesbur.

He says lobbies of the newer theaters in his city — ones he didn’t design — are often mostly black with a few splashes of color, flashing lights and loud music. Video games, often tucked away in theaters of old, also are scattered around in plain view.

“Those are the theaters that I never go to,” Mesbur says, chuckling.

Still, experts who track the movie industry say that, so far, all these kinds of efforts appear to be paying off, even in a recession.

Though domestic movie admissions had flattened or dipped slightly in the past couple of years, ticket sales this year are up, whether some of the most popular movies have been Academy Award material or not.

“A bad or poorly received film can go down a bit easier if one is sitting in a comfortable reclining seat and has the chance to occasionally stretch their legs. In this sense, cinema-going has as much to do today with the hospitality industry as it does with the film industry, per se,” says Jeffrey Klenotic, associate professor of communication arts at the University of New Hampshire.

That’s a disheartening view to Ron Leone, a film and media studies professor at Stonehill College in Massachusetts. He looks around the audiences at the “uncomfortable, but nice” independent movie theaters he regularly attends, and sees few young faces.

“Apparently, watching the cat flushing the toilet is more satisfying,” he says, chuckling as he pokes fun at young people’s growing appetite for online videos. Those videos include anything from kitschy amateur pieces to the growing array of short and full-length films found online.

That’s why more theaters are focusing on movies with monster special effects that don’t show well on a computer screen or in-home theater and that are all but all but impossible for movie pirates to steal — and why major filmmakers such as Jeffrey Katzenberg and James Cameron are banking on 3-D and IMAX technology as the future of cinema. (Panasonic Corp. also announced that they’re going to start selling 3-D televisions next year.)

So far, movie-goers have been more than willing to pay more to see movies in these special formats.

Earlier this month, when IMAX Corp., maker of large-screen movie-theater technology, reported a second-quarter profit with revenues nearly doubled. The company credited its growing cinema network, which includes about 250 theaters equipped to play Hollywood feature films in IMAX format, which uses digital technology to give what some call a notably richer visual experience, including 3-D.

Those films range from “Transformers,” “Pirates of the Caribbean” to the “Harry Potter” films, all aimed at younger audiences. And when IMAX announced a special preview of the upcoming Cameron film “Avatar,” “our Web site got more traffic than you can imagine,” says Greg Foster, chairman and president of IMAX Filmed Entertainment.

Combining movie and video game themes is a savvy move, says Chris Haack, a Chicago-based senior analyst with Mintel International, a market research firm that regularly monitors the movie theater industry.

He says theaters also would be wise to offer young theater-goers more chance to interact, for instance, letting them vote on which previews are shown or which movies stay at a theater longer than another.

The goal is to keep the attention of the 18-to-24 age bracket — “the most important part of the market,” Haack says — and the most likely to watch video online.

A recent survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 62 percent of Internet users, age 18 to 24, said they watch TV shows and movies online, compared with just over a third of all Internet users.

Overall, online video traffic has skyrocketed more than 80 percent, from 10.8 billion videos viewed in June 2008 to nearly 19.5 billion in June of this year, according to tracking firm comScore.

Acland, at Concordia University, predicts that will translate to more blockbuster action films geared toward the theaters, while character-driven films might open at theaters to create buzz, but ultimately get more play online.

Foster, at IMAX, agrees and envisions fewer “mid-range” films, those with some action but weaker plots or little character depth. “I think those movies are going by the wayside,” he says.

Of course, there will always be those surprise hits, such as “The Hangover,” a character-driven comedy that caught on by word of mouth — some of it by Twitter and Facebook, which is increasingly the case — and ended up doing well at the box office.

And even when a movie is leaked online, that doesn’t necessarily stop movie-goers from seeing it at the theater. That was the case when “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” brought in $87 million at the box office its opening weekend last spring, even though a version of it had been making the rounds on the Internet.

Still, there’s no doubt the landscape is shifting. Some filmmakers — Michael Moore, Wayne Wang and Johnny Knoxville among them — have taken some of their work directly to the Internet on YouTube and elsewhere. And more films also are being released in theaters at the same time they’ve played on cable or online.

The Internet also has provided new opportunities for young filmmakers, like 24-year-old Philip Wang, who are looking to break into the business.

He and his buddies started making short films in 2003 when they were students at the University of California, San Diego. Now their Wong Fu Productions Web site gets 5,000 hits a day from loyal fans who come to view their frequently updated collection of free short films. They make money by selling T-shirts and other merchandise related to their “brand” and from speaking on college campuses across the country.

While they certainly crave a box office hit, Wang still feels very loyal to Wong Fu’s online audience. And he only expects that audience to grow, especially as online video becomes part of everyday life for the up-and-coming generation of movie-watchers.

“I don’t think movie theaters will ever be obsolete,” Wang says. “But these kids are growing up on YouTube and with high-speed Internet. Someone’s going to have to create the supply for that demand.”

He muses at the unlikely thought that the Oscars would ever add a “Best Online Short Film” category.

But either way, he says, “Sooner than later, success online will translate to success in the mainstream.”

___

On the Net:

http://www.wongfuproductions.com/

http://moviesfromeveryangle.wordpress.com

___

Martha Irvine is an AP national writer. She can be reached at mirvine(at)ap.org or http://twitter.com/irvineap

Poster Review – Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

The first one sheet for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time was released today, and it’s somewhat of a “good news, bad news” situation. The good news is that it’s very simple.  Jake Gyllenhaal stands authoritatively without eliciting laughter. And he’s got two swords, so we know he means business.

The font on the movie title is also very bold. It’s plain, big, and puts the emphasis on “Persia” to suggest the story’s scope. The coloring allows the gray clouds to somewhat overwhelm his brown outfit and red clothe so that it doesn’t look like a 300 knockoff, which it easily could have.

The bad news is that the tagline is terrible. It’s doesn’t give an idea of what the movie is about, it gives orders. Since the remake of Planet of the Apes (whose tagline was “Rule the planet”), a lot of movies have used “orders” as a tagline. It’s supposed to make the movie seem important, but just comes off as forced. It’s also almost an exact copy of the tagline for The X-Files movie (from ’98, not I Want to Believe), which was “Fight the future.” It wasn’t good then, it’s not good now.

While the poster isn’t terrible, it isn’t very interesting, either. Unless you’ve played the video game that the movie is based on, there’s not much to “ooh” about here. And as it stands, you can’t help but giggle at Jake Gyllenhall in that costume. Not because he looks silly in it. He actually looks pretty threatening. But anyone who can read the film’s title knows that he’s miscast playing a Persian prince.

But there are still a few reasons this may be a hit: 1) it’s directed by Mike Newell, who recently demonstrated a strong sense of character-driven f/x fantasy with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, and 2) it’s produced by Jerry Bruckheimer for Disney. The last time Bruckheimer and Disney took a chance on an “iffy” prospect (in this case, a video game, which has a larger rate of failure); the movie was Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl.

What do you think of the poster for Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time? Let me know.

Trailer Review – Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief

Years ago, I read a rumor online about a movie Francis Ford Coppola was working on, in which Greek gods came to New York City. The movie was never made, but the concept had me intrigued.

Just a few weeks ago, I picked up a copy of “The Last Olympian,” written by Rick Riordan. I was shocked to see that not only was it the fourth in the “Percy Jackson” series (I had never heard of them), but that the first, “The Lightning Thief,” was being turned into a movie for release next February. Since I’m not a fan of first-person fantasy, I had no interest in reading the books, but I found the prospect of the movie exciting, especially given that the Coppola film never came to be.

Well today, the teaser trailer for Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief debuted. It begins with ominous, magical, music and shots establishing the New York City setting, a boy stepping out of a taxi, into a building, being given a key by a doorman, and entering an elevator. He un-hoods and the camera slows down to reveal what appears to be a shorter Zac Efron (it’s not). The music bellows, as if to say “you know who that is, don’t you?”

The problem is: I don’t. And my feeling is that a lot of people aren’t going to either. Debuting with Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, it’s a certainty that much of the Potter audience has read the “Percy Jackson” books, or has at least heard of them. But this series has never hit that crossover level. Not yet, anyway. Not in print.

The movie’s tagline is clever: “Some heroes are made. And some are born…of the gods.” This plays on a clichéd line, but also gives us a sense of what the movie is about. But the phrase “born of the gods” isn’t really accessible. Unless the trailer is marketed solely to children who’ve read the book, the wording may leave them scratching their heads.

After the elevator seemingly travels at the speed of light to the top of the building, the doors open to reveal what I can assume to be Olympus, but actually looks more like Hogwarts. The title is revealed amidst clouds and mystery, and if no one was reading closely, would just assume that it said Harry Potter and the…

Maybe the movie will have its own visual style. Maybe it won’t be a Harry Potter knockoff. It’s directed by Chris Columbus, who directed the first two Potter movies (as the trailer wisely boasts). But after two years of back-to-back fantasy failures (The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, The Golden Compass, The Seeker: The Dark is Rising), Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief  is going to have show audiences something new in order to step out of Harry’s shadow.

What do you think of the teaser trailer for Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief? Let me know.

Movie Review – Meet Dave

The first scene in Meet Dave is of a tiny meteor breaking into earth’s atmosphere. The second scene shows a little boy (Austin Lynd Myers) looking through a telescope and catching glimpse of the meteor. Wouldn’t you know it? Out of all the little boys looking through telescopes in the world, this tiny meteor (which turns out to be a mysterious orb about the size of a hand-ball) crashes right into his room.

Fast-forward three months. An alien starship, modeled after the appearance of its captain (Eddie Murphy) and built to imitate human behavior, crash-lands on earth in search of the orb.

Moments after arriving on earth, he (it?) gets hit by a car driven by the little boy’s mom (Elizabeth Banks). He flees the scene and runs away to a back alley, which happens to be right outside their home. “That’s the guy I hit!” Gina Morrison says, unalarmed that the man she hit with her car is now standing outside her apartment window.

There’s just so much coincidence within only a matter of minutes. The film is so forced, so contrived, so terribly artificial. Gina reacts to the starship, now known as “Dave,” like a kind-hearted stranger, and never quite recognizes his awkward, inhuman, behavior. She should be terrified, but she’s barely uncomfortable.

Myers, as the little boy, Josh, is terrible. He kills the credibility of every scene he’s in, reminding the audience that they are, in fact, watching a movie. I knew he was bad when I saw him in the 30-second TV spots last summer. He reads his lines with no sense of what he’s saying, no urgency, no life. He seems to think that knowing his lines is enough. It’s not.

Within minutes, I realized that Meet Dave is not a bad movie, it just feels like it should have been made for television or gone direct-to-DVD. But thanks to Murphy, the movie is actually kind of funny. His performance is likable and authentic, showing his failed attempts to imitate humans walking, smiling, shaking hands, or simply acknowledging others.

And some of the movie is clever. In one scene, Gina asks Dave to stay over for dinner. She tells him that she’s making meatloaf. The crew of the ship immediately bring up a video of the singer. In response, Dave’s expression changes to one of shock and fear. In another scene, Dave drinks a bottle of ketchup, mistaking it for a beverage.

I can’t recommend Meet Dave, even though it had me chuckling more than I would have expected. It’s still something of a missed opportunity. About halfway through, after a failed attempt to win a stuffed animal at a carnival, Dave proclaims “spectacularly unsuccessful.” Not quite, but not far off.

Rating: