Review: G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013) fixes what wasn't broken and breaks it possibly beyond repair.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation
2013
100 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

It's no secret that I'm a fan of G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (review).  It's big, colorful, and filled with over-the-top action performed by larger-than-life heroes and villains.  The first 90 minutes (I have issues with the finale) is basically, as I said back in 2009, what might happen if someone gave the 7-year old me to go play with my G.I. Joe action figures and gave me $175 million to spend on the resulting play-drama.  But for whatever reason fan-boys and critics carped about the last picture, calling it too ridiculous and too silly for a, um, G.I. Joe movie.  So now four years later, we have a somewhat stripped down and more 'realistic' sequel to Stephen Sommers's outlandish original. Jon Chu was under orders to make it cheaper and basically more 'grounded' than the last picture, and I suppose he has succeeded. G.I. Joe: Retaliation can best be described as G.I. Joe meets Act of Valor.  I don't mean that as a compliment.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets another weirdly generic trailer.

Isn't Star Trek supposed to be about star trekking?  Ya know, exploring strange new worlds, seeking new life and new civilizations, and possibly going where no man has gone before?  This may look like a decent action thriller, but it also feels like a painfully generic adventure that happens to be painted in Star Trek paint.  Benadict Cumberbatch shows up, Cumberbatch commits several acts of terrorism, Kirk goes after Cumberbatch.  I sincerely hope there is more to the story than that and there may very well be.  But what we've seen so far suggests the film boldly going where any number of sequels have gone before.  And, if I may, why oh why couldn't Paramount wait until next weekend to debut this with G.I. Joe: Retaliation?  Anyway, Star Trek Into Darkness opens May 15th in IMAX 3D and May 17th elsewhere domestically.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson  

Star Trek Into Darkness gets an action-packed new trailer.

The only spoiler bit is at around 1:02, where Captain Pike has some facial scars that I don't recall him having at the end of the first Star Trek (he was of course seriously injured, but I don't recall scarring). Perhaps Pike gets those scars when Cumberbatch escapes from his glass prison at the halfway mark, because "He planned to get caught the whole time!". Otherwise, this is a quick (78 seconds) and breezy action-packed trailer.  It's nice that they aren't focusing as much on Benedict Cumberbatch's mystery villain (I have a theory on that, broached by a friend of mine and backed up by what we've seen thus far, but I'm not sharing in case I'm right) and also showing off that the film isn't all gloom and misery this time around. The initial trailers tried to sell the film as a generic 'dark sequel' or The Dark Knight meets Skyfall meets Revenge of the Sith.  This new trailer plays in the Return of the Jedi/Tron sandbox with phasers set for swashbuckling adventure. 

Pity... Universal cancels Oblivion's early IMAX release.

Having rather loathed Tron: Legacy, I've had to work myself up in order to get excited about Joseph Kosinski's Oblivion.  Yes, Tom Cruise usually makes sure that his big-scale pictures are a cut above and yes the film looks better with each trailer, but the biggest cause for hope was its release schedule.  The film's national release was set for April 19th, but the film was also going a full week early in IMAX only, giving paying audiences a week-long sneak preview in IMAX and other larger-screen formats.  But alas, that promising move by Universal has been cancelled.  Chalk it up to Cruise wanting to do international press for the film's overseas debut on the 12th and the film's US debut on the 19th, chalk it up to Universal wanting an extra week of play for their 3D reissue of Jurassic Park on April 12th, but audiences will not be seeing Oblivion: The IMAX Experience one week early after all.  Color me genuinely disappointed.

There can only be two! A possible future where Disney and Warner Bros. dominate franchise tent-pole film making...

The news that has broken over the last couple days is not a little depressing.  While the Seven Samurai-esque Star Wars stand-alone film to be helmed by Zack Snyder was quickly denied, we have gotten word for Disney that there would indeed be stand-alone Star Wars films.  The bad news?  So far, they seem to be entirely centered around well-established characters from the original trilogy.  You want a stand-alone prequel involving Yoda?  Or how about films centered around a young Boba Fett or a young(er) Han Solo?  If so, you're going to be pretty happy over the next half-decade or so.  But if you thought that Disney was buying the Star Wars franchise to somewhat expand its universe rather than merely give us unneeded origins and/or backstories for the very characters we already know a good deal about, well this news won't make you happy.  In fact it reeks of the kind of lazy corporate thinking that gives entertainment corporations a bad name.  It's frankly the first bit of news that might make one thing that maybe Disney, which in general has been relatively good to the properties they have purchased over the years (Muppets, Marvel, etc.) might not be the perfect owner of Lucasfilm that we all thought.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a Super Bowl tease and (more intriguingly) a two-day early IMAX release.

Okay, so having Kirk ask who Benedict Cumberbatch is and having the villain merely answer "I'm better... at everything" is just being obnoxious, although I appreciate the subtle dig at those dying for confirmation about who he's playing in this sequel.  The rest of the tease is pretty much standard 'dark sequel' boilerplate, and I can't wait for someone to eventually cut together a super-cut of scary villain interrogation scenes with Joker, Loki, Silva, and whoever the hell Cumberbatch is playing, in turn followed by a supercut of their magnificent and meticulously planned escapes  ("He's been planning this for years!"  "He planned to get caught!" "He wanted to hit us where it hurts!").  What's interesting is the news that the film will debut on IMAX 3D two days ahead of its planned May 17th national release.  I wrote way back when that the successful five-day sneak release of Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol would start this kind of thing, and it appears that I was right.  Tom Cruise's Oblivion is getting a full week of exclusive IMAX play and Skyfall of course opened a day early in IMAX.  Now Skyfall made a whole $2.5 million on that Thursday, so we're talking more about word of mouth than actually amassing major IMAX bucks.  Still, the early sneak release means that Paramount is playing long ball, arguably sacrificing a shot at the Fri-Sun record books (however unlikely) for a chance to get the word out before the weekend even begins.  It's a promising strategy and one that also implies that Paramount has confidence in the product and/or will be having long-lead press screenings for critics more important than myself.  I'll still get the All-Media at worst, but I sincerely hope that Paramount actually screens this for press *in* IMAX, unlike nearly every major theatrical release from 2012 save The Amazing Spider-Man and The Dark Knight Rises.

Scott Mendelson

Review: Jack Reacher (2012) is a mostly satisfying old-school 90s-style genre-throwback.

Jack Reacher

2012
130 minutes
rated PG-13

by Scott Mendelson

Writer/director Christopher McQuarrie's Jack Reacher (trailer) is such an authentic bygone relic that I'm not entirely sure it takes place in the present day.  The picture looks, sounds, and feels like a relatively high-quality action thriller from the mid-1990's, which is mostly a compliment.  I could be mistaken, but I don't recall a single scene where a character uses the Internet and/or uses their cell phone for anything other than *talking* (the title character even uses a pay phone on several occasions).  But, thank the heavens, this is not some kind of 'let's make a 90's thriller' technical exercise, but it merely inhabits a mostly forgotten sub genre so successfully that it becomes something of a time capsule piece.  For those not interesting in examining it as a kind of relic, it fortunately also operates as a consistently entertaining and intelligent procedural.  It is strongly acted by all, with pulpy dialogue which I presume comes from the Lee Childs book (One Shot) from which it is based.  It has issues of length and tone, but it mostly entertains and is the rare would-be franchise starter for which I'd gladly see a sequel.

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very generic 'sequel' trailer.

Oddly enough, I did not see this trailer with my Friday afternoon showing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.  Now that I've seen this trailer, what do I think?  Well, it looks pretty solid.  Yes it still feels like we're following the 'dark sequel' template, almost as if it's in a Mad Libs book.  Yes we get not one ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speech but two ponderous 'character arc in a monologue' speeches.  I could say that once again the film is being marketed as "The Dark Knight but Star Trek-style", but I think that's almost too easy of a label.  But the film both looks pretty epic in scope *and* seems to involve quite a bit of, trekking across various stars.  They do seem to be teasing both references to Wrath of Khan and a major character death. 3.5 years ago, I pegged Chekov (Anton Yelchin) as the likely 'killed off halfway through character, and the fact that Yelchin's star hasn't exactly risen since only adds credence to said theory (that we see him in a red shirt when Pike is monologuing about Kirk's arrogance getting his friends killed doesn't help).  Anyway, this looks somewhat like generic sequel 101, but it still looks awfully entertaining.  As always, we'll see, in this case when Star Trek Into Darkness drops on May 17, 2013.  What are your thoughts on the above trailer?  Do share below...

Scott Mendelson

Trailer: GI Joe: Retaliation teases subversive global fantasy of the world's worst fears concerning American military might.

It will be amusing and interesting to see how Paramount was able to rejigger the story in order to put previously DOA 'Duke' (Channing Tatum) back into the movie after he was un-killed following his banner 2012 theatrical year.  But more interesting than that, I'd argue, is the film's weirdly subversive plotline.  Wisely continuing from G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra's terrific cliffhanger, the Jon Chu-helmed sequel runs with the idea of the president of the United States being a literal world-wrecking super-villain.  We've had plenty of stories which toyed with the idea of an absolute monster attaining the highest office in the land, but they are usually defeated prior to election (or, in the case of the fifth season of 24, most of Gregory Yitzin's comparably tempered evildoing was committed prior to his exposure as the season's big bad).  Of course, with the president replaced by Arnold Vosloo's Zartan, the world must deal with an America that the world has arguably always feared.  Here we have a US president who basically uses America's stockpile to rain utter carnage on the world over.  I have to wonder if this plot thread is some kind of way to appeal to foreign markets, just as the film's conversion to 3D was more for overseas grosses than domestic ones (let's just say if you asked foreign audiences back in 2002 about The Two Towers, they probably said it was an Iraq-invasion parable very different from the one stateside audiences presumed).  Yes, the G.I. Joes are basically American, working to save their country from an internal threat.  But the idea of a US President gone mad with genocidal powers is something I don't think we've seen before, so for that reason alone G.I. Joe: Retaliation may end up being more than just a pointless sequel.  We'll know soon enough when it opens on March 29, 2013.   

Scott Mendelson

New Star Trek Into Darkness image evokes serious deja vu....

 Gee, I wonder if Benedict Cumberbatch intentionally allows himself to get captured in the second act as part of a devious multi-pronged plan to escape and cause havoc in the very lair of his enemies?  Will said post-capture/pre-escape sequence also allow Cumberbatch to monologue about how he and Kirk and/or Spock really aren't that different, that their apparent control is merely an illusion, and Kirk and Spock are foolish for supporting governmental institutions that will discard them once they outlive their usefulness? We'll see soon enough, but don't bet against it!

Scott Mendelson

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very 'Dark Knight' teaser...

I don't know if this qualifies as a teaser for a trailer, but since this seems to be a complete piece in-and-of itself, I'll let it slide.  Obviously the scope looks huge, but jeez how badly do J.J. Abrams and company want to market this as The Dark Knight of Star Trek films?  From the 'I'm going to shake you out of your comfort zone!' monologue from the lone bringer-of-chaos villain to the Inception/Dark Knight trailer music, it's humorously clear what the marketing template is.  Of course, if the film turns out to just be 'making a Nolan Batman film, but with Star Trek', that may be an issue (Star Trek generally hasn't faired well when going 'dark/gritty'), but for now let's presume that it's just Paramount marketing.  Of note is the second Japanese teaser, which includes an additional final shot that A) may be very very spoilery and B) ends the teaser on a more potent musical note.  Watch at your own risk, although I can't imagine a film as top-secret as this one (we still don't know who Cumberbatch is playing) would tease something that major in the first piece of marketing.  Anyway, the full teaser-trailer will be attached to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on December 14th and Paramount is keeping it offline until December 17th, which would be cooler of them if they hadn't just released this online-only teaser.  And of course the 9-minute IMAX tease will be attached to IMAX prints of The Hobbit.  Star Trek Into Darkness (still an awful title, natch) opens May 17th, 2013.  As always, we'll see...

Scott Mendelson

Star Trek Into Darkness gets a very 'Chris Nolan' poster.

When I wrote 3.5 years ago that Paramount hoped that the inevitable Star Trek 2 would "pull a Dark Knight", I didn't realize how literal I was apparently being.  Coupled with the teaser trailer attached to The Hobbit: An Unexpected Beginning and a 9-minute IMAX sneak peak attached to IMAX prints of same, this first teaser poster shows Paramount is copying the Chris Nolan Dark Knight playbook to a tee.  Snickering about obvious similarities aside, this is a very stylish and impressive poster.  It's the first official glimpse at Benedict Cumberbatch as 'He who has not yet been named', with implications that he does score a big win at some point in the picture.  So yes, it's a poster in the vein of the last three Chris Nolan films.  But  that doesn't mean it's not a very effective piece of marketing and/or art.

Scott Mendelson

Paramount attaches Star Trek Into Darkness IMAX sneak to The Hobbit, screws over Warner Bros. yet again.

Paramount just loves using IMAX to screw with Warner Bros.  For the third time, Paramount has put Warner Bros. in a somewhat awkward position.  As you recall, three years ago a scheduling conflict between Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince left the sixth Harry Potter picture without IMAX screens for the first two weekends of its run.  The loss certainly didn't hurt the box office much (HP6 was the first HP sequel to cross $300 million domestic), but it was an embarrassing scheduling snafu.  This time last year Warner Bros somewhat shot itself in the foot by allowing the IMAX preview for The Dark Knight Rises to premiere in front of 'true IMAX' prints (about 40 screens) of Paramount's Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol even as the film opened in limited IMAX release against Warner Bros' Sherlock Homes: A Game of Shadows.  Again, no real harm, no real foul, although the fourth M:I picture got tons of free publicity that otherwise would have gone to Sherlock Holmes 2 had *it* been the only place to see new The Dark Knight Rises footage.  Warner Bros did Paramount a favor last year and it seems that it's payback time.  Ironically said payback will end up hurting Warner Bros yet again. 

A kingdom with no ruler: The current animation landscape...

For the second year in a row, Pixar will not have anything close to the best animated film of the year and will not have the highest-grossing animated film of the year, not worldwide anyway. This is not a rant to bag on Pixar, as they will be fine (I'm optimistic that they are merely experiencing growing pains) and I'm more curious to examine what the animation field looks like without an uncontested leader. The critical disappointments of the likes of Cars 2 and Brave along with the lack of any guaranteed masterpieces for a little while puts Pixar in a position where it's now just 'one of the guys'.  Disney has been trying to reclaim its once-uncontested title, but it too now sits in a position where it's 'just one of the gang', as there is no guarantee that the likes of Wreck It Ralph will even out-gross The Lorax domestically (worldwide, Tangled was the first Disney toon to top $350 million since Tarzan back in 1999).  Critically, Disney has not had an out-and-out gem since Meet the Robinsons back in 2007, where it was matched by Pixar's Ratatouille.  So the question becomes what does the animation landscape look like when neither Disney or even Pixar is the uncontested king of the proverbial hill?  The answer is somewhat more exciting than you'd think.

Review: Flight (2012) is generic and conventional would-be character study that never takes off.

Flight

2012
140 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

That Robert Zemeckis's Flight does not resemble the film that is being advertised (trailer) it not in itself a crime.  Marketing is often a game of misdirection and, considering Zemeckis's reputation for spoiler-filled trailers, it's a little ironic that his return to live-action film making is advertised is such a bait-and-switch fashion.  But while I'll honestly admit that I would have preferred the film being advertised versus the film that was delivered, the core flaw of this well-acted Denzel Washington vehicle is that it's not a very compelling version of what it is.  In short it's *not* a character-driven mystery involving a plane crash and how exactly it went down and who or what was responsible.  It is simply a character study of a functioning alcoholic.  What grounds Flight is the fact that it's simple not a very good film about a functioning alcoholic, as several major narrative choices work to lessen our interest and emotional investment.

Why the box office failure of Fun Size is actually good news.

Call it reason 3,214 why movies aren't dead.  As you all know, the Nickelodeon comedy Fun Size debuted in theaters last weekend with nary a peep. With just $4 million to its name by Sunday night, it was the 64th-lowest opening weekend for a wide release in history.  Why does any of this matter?  Well, precisely because it doesn't matter.  The film starred Victoria Justice, Jane Levy, and Chelsea Handler and was sold as "The Hangover for kids".  It was also yet another example of a female-centric comedy.  It bombed.  But you know what didn't happen?  You didn't hear hand-wringing about how a female-centric comedy tanked at the box office. You didn't see speculative essays about what the film's failure meant for the future of female-driven comedy in mainstream cinema.  Heck, I did not see one single article discussing even the fact that the film was in fact a female-centric comedy.  I've always said progress comes when you don't have to talk about it.  Well Fun Size bombed last weekend and nobody really cared.  I'd argue that is progress.

Wreck It Ralph vs Flight in the Weekend Movie Preview.

Easily expected to be the biggest film this weekend, Wreck-It Ralph is the latest release from Disney Animation. The plot follows Ralph, the protagonist in the fictional video game Fix-It Felix, who tires of being the bad guy and leaves his game to find another in which he can become a hero. Along the way he encounters Tamora Calhoun, a sergeant in the Call of Duty/Halo style game, Hero's Duty and Vanellope von Schweetz, an 8 year old girl in racing game, Sugar Rush. But while Ralph is trying to realise his dream, Schweetz discovers a problem within her own game, one that could have dire consequences not only for the cast of Sugar Rush but the entire arcade - and it looks like Ralph leaving his own game could be the cause of all the problems. Development on Wreck-It Ralph began a number of years ago, as an idea from story artist Sam Levine. At that point the picture was known as Joe Jump and featured an over the hill character attempting to make the transition into modern videogames. Levine was making good progress on the project (enough for a rough synopsis to turn up online) but when John Lasseter took over as head of Disney Animation in 2006, the status of Joe Jump became unclear. While the Pixar honcho let Levine (and his writer) work on the project for a further year, it began to languish, and with little sign of moving forward, Joe Jump was put on the shelf and Levine was assigned to another project. While Lasseter was impressed by the core idea, he wasn't sold on the story itself. 

Paranormal Activity 4 vs Alex Cross: John Gosling previews the week's new movies (10-19-12)

The Paranormal Activity franchise is a multi-million dollar global phenomenon and shows little sign of stopping. The origins of the series stretch back to 2007 when director Oren Peli gathered a group of unknown actors together and shot a very small scale scare flick utilizing the 'found footage' technique (to keep costs costs down he even converted his house into a shooting location and set just seven days aside for filming). The story followed a young couple who encounter strange goings-on in their house. Katie claims an evil presence has always been with her, while her partner Micah is skeptical Setting up a video camera in their bedroom, they soon discover unexplained events, which escalate in the space of a few days. Made for just $15K, Paranormal Activity began gaining strong word of mouth thanks to an impressive showing at the ScreamFest Horror festival. This screening ended up securing Peli an agent but attempts to get the film a distribution deal stumbled even after the director (and Miramax's Jason Blum) re-edited the feature for its Sundance debut. A number of DVDs were sent out to any potentially interested party and one managed to catch the attention of Dreamworks execs Stacey Snider and Adam Goodman, who brought the film to Steven Spielberg's notice. The studio quickly cut a deal with Peli, on the proviso that he re-shoot the picture with an increased budget and higher production values. He agreed, on the condition that he could screen his original version for an audience first. When people walked out not long into the screening, Goodman figured they'd backed a failure. However, when he realized that the people had left due to being frightened by what they'd seen, his opinion changed. The remake idea was scrapped and the studio quickly moved to purchase the domestic rights to distribute (via their deal with Paramount) and the international rights to any sequels. Peli then re-edited the film, and altered the ending from the one seen at Screamfest. But, due to ongoing talks between Paramount and Dreamworks regarding their partnership, all of the latter's productions were delayed for the foreseeable future. Only when Adam Goodman became head of Paramount in summer 2009 did Paranormal Activity gain a release date.

Who should die in the Dora The Explorer movie? We need *your help* to decide who should be killed off!

As was announced last month, Paramount will be stocking up its post-Dreamworks animation slate with a number of Nickelodeon properties, among them being the long-awaited first feature film for Dora the Explorer.  It figures that we'd finally get a big-screen Dora adventure just as my daughter is about to outgrow said franchise, but them's the breaks.  Anyway, Dora the Explorer is still among the more entertaining shows aimed at the preschool set and few can deny that it revolutionized the kids-show format with its interactive 'let's go on an adventure' template.  And now, about twelve years after its premiere, we're finally getting a movie.  So the question immediately becomes: who's gonna die?  It's a movie and said big-screen adventure has to do something to matter in the broad continuity, otherwise it just becomes a 4-5 part episode projected in DLP 3D.  And we all know that the easiest way to achieve narrative 'relevance' in a longstanding property is to kill off a major character.  So, as we await the big-screen spectacular that is Dora the Explorer 3D, let us discuss just which longstanding character is the most likely to perish at either the second act climax or the very finale of the picture.

Why I almost cancelled my Indiana Jones blu-ray order...

As with most of the geeks here and elsewhere, Amazon will be dropping off my pre-ordered set of the Indiana Jones series on Blu Ray this afternoon.  I ordered it a few months ago, despite misgivings about it.  Misgivings, you say?  Well, here's the rub: My wife and I just watched all four films just last year.  So, and I hinted at this in last week's essay about multiple theatrical viewings, the life of an adult (job, family, etc.) leaves little time for watching movies, even favorite movies, multiple times.  My wife and I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  What is the likelihood we are going to watch them again anytime in the next few years?  I almost didn't buy the Jaws blu ray for just this reason, as my wife isn't a Jaws fanatic and I can't imagine showing the film to my kids anytime terribly soon (my wife being my wife, she actually prefers Jaws 3 and Jaws the Revenge).  But in the end I eventually spent the $20 on Jaws and the $65 on the Indiana Jones set because I figured my wife would enjoy watch the copious new extras on the sets.  Well, I was half-right.