411 Movies Roundtable: May 2009 (Part 2)

Posted by Owain J. Brimfield on 05.01.2009

The 411 staff continues their discussion of the upcoming big releases in May!

Please click here if you missed part one!

Coming Attractions

MAY 1ST

Battle for Terra
Studio: Lionsgate
Directed by: Aristomenis Tsirbas
Starring: Evan Rachel Wood, Luke Wilson, Justin Long, Brian Cox
The plot: A space explorer (Wilson) crash-lands on the planet Terra and finds himself at the forefront of a battle to prevent his people, who are entrenched in a civil war at home, from invading the beautiful, peaceful planet where he has two new friends, rebellious alien teens Mala (Wood) and Senn (Long).

Furious: Initial Hollywood vibe has this pegged as a disaster, which is why its been thrown to the, ahem, wolves. But kids movies do find a market in the summer and early reviews have been encouraging.

Thomas: Yay, another 3-D film, and this one looks like it's one of those "let's show off all the cool things we can do with 3-D" things. I hate 3-D as a film gimmick and while I love this cast, I'm not at all sure about it. Lionsgate must not be very confident in it either, if they're putting it up against Wolverine, so this just sounds problematic all-around.

Kristopowitz: I don't know much about this movie. In fact, I've never heard of it. It sounds like another Delgo animated movie (you know, a flop). I'm sure Lionsgate will have a nice DVD of the flick when it comes out (probably next month).

Lealos: I don't know what to think. Earth is destroyed and surviving humans decide to invade and conquer a peaceful alien planet. How often do you see a movie where we are the bad guys? The story looks really interesting but I don't know if the animation will carry it out. It looks like an old video game. But that story...

Gustafson: This is just there. Nothing to get excited about. I will say that the people they got to do voices are awesome! Still, I don't hear any of the kids running around mhy neighborhood screaming out, "BATTLE FOR TERRA!" Sure, this movie wasn't made for me in mind but even if I was younger, I doubt I would be seeing this.

Chamberlain: Well, this one snuck up on me! I literally knew nothing about this movie before reading this, then running off to check out the trailer. Didn't even know it was CG. I have to say it looks pretty cool. The animation looks good, the 3D angle is nice, and it has a story that is actually pretty nuanced for a kids movie. Here we have humans looking for a new home and deciding to invade a peaceful planet and destroy the peaceful denizens of the world for their own gain. That's... pretty dark! For a kids movie.

Brimfield: The voice cast is just fantastically eclectic and is probably worth a watch for that alone, and combined with the somewhat unique story, I'm genuinely intrigued by this one. Not that it looks especially great, just intriguing.

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past
Studio: New Line
Directed by: Mark Waters
Starring: Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, Michael Douglas
The plot: At his younger brother's wedding, a committed bachelor/womanizer (McConaughey) is haunted by his romantic past.

Furious: What is it with McConaughey doing rom-coms every time out? Is he really in that much of a creative rut that he feels the need to basically shoot the same unchallenging film over and over again. The last time he took a challenging role was somewhere around the late ‘90's.

Thomas: You know, I actually laughed just a little during the trailer. Once. The rest of the time I was stone-faced. Matthew McConaughey is burying his career with these kinds of terrible romantic comedies, and really the only thing that can probably save this is Michael Douglas's inspired-looking turn as McConaughey's mentor. Funny fact: this was originally supposed to be a Ben Affleck vehicle with Disney back in '03, but the bombing of Gigli killed it. I wonder if Ben's glad he missed out on it.

Kristopowitz: I like the idea behind this movie, but Mathew McConaughey is just awful. The man can't act. So how exactly is this movie supposed to work? Good looks will only take you so far before it's obvious what you're doing is sub-par. I feel sorry for Jennifer Garner, though. She has to appear in the movie with him.

Lealos: Sue me, this looks good. I like Matthew McConaughey and he looks to be in good form in these trailers. I think the twist on A Christmas Carol is a neat twist to the rom-com and, while it is probably as predictable as it looks, I think it will be a painless journey for the guys if their wives drag them to see it. If you want further evidence, it is the same director of the excellent Mean Girls.

Gustafson: Whoever scheduled this was smart. While the guys are seeing Wolverine, the girls can go across the hall and watch this. Inoffensive and gets Michael Douglas out of the house.

Chamberlain: Back in the days of Alias, I had a major thing for Jennifer Garner. She does look good in this movie too, but I'm really not into the Matthew McConaughey romantic comedy oeuvre. But I do like Michael Douglas. But this movie dares to use the Scrooge template and I'm not sure I like that...

Brimfield: In a word, beige. I've no desire to see this, but the premise at least looks vaguely original, which is more than can be said for most rom-coms.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Directed by: Gavin Hood
Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schrieber, Ryan Reynolds, Danny Huston
The plot: The chronicle of Wolverine's younger years as a mutant connects to his relationship and eventual falling out with Victor Creed/Sabretooth (Schreiber), and his fateful entry into the Weapon X project, the governmental program that turns willing and unwilling beings into living weapons.

Furious: Big hype for this one. The X-Men franchise had run its course but only because of Brett Ratner's lazy and incompetent handling of the third film. I was quite happy to see more if the right director was attached. Gavin Hood has a decent record and Marvel have specifically used this film to include some of the Marvel Universe's better known characters who don't fit elsewhere. Gambit, Deadpool and Sabretooth are all potential stars of their own films. Marvel is using the success of Wolverine as a character to push these other star characters onto the mass market. And if they're done right Marvel is setting itself up for a multitude of hit films for the next 20 years. That Avi Arad is a smart motherfucker. Personally I'll watch anything with Marvel's seal on it… so I'm there.

Thomas: Yes, we know, we know. Many of you have already seen this... except you haven't. The workprint release was missing not just the special effects, but a good ten minutes as well, and a very critical ten minutes they could be (especially if it involves reshoots of the supposed ending involving Weapon XI). Either way, the X-Factor here isn't the mutant gene, it's the quality of the film... this could be very good, and it could very well be terrible. No matter which way it goes, I'll be there to see it, and I'm sure one way or another I'll have a lot to say about it the next day.

Kristopowitz: While I have reservations about this movie (Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool? Was Dane Cook busy?), I'm still excited about it. Jackman should do fine as Logan, and the action stuff shown in the trailer looks cool. I'm also intrigued by Liev Schreiber as Sabertooth. Will the movie address the whole "he looked like Tyler Mane in the first movie" thing (this movie supposedly takes place in the 1970's or the 1980's or something, and I'm just guessing that it will keep the same continuity as the X-Men movies). It'll also be interesting to see if the internet leak hurts the opening weekend. It shouldn't, but at least Fox has a ready-made excuse if the movie tanks.

Lealos: I'm going to Dallas for a weekend getaway and I have already planned to see this movie on the Saturday night I am there. I guess that tells you what I am hoping for from this movie. Hugh Jackman should be great as Wolverine, as usual. It has Liev Schreiber, who I think is one of the best actors going today. Ryan Reynolds is always great. My wife loves Gambit, so there is that. I want this to be a fun, exciting superhero movie and I don't expect too much from it. I should be entertained.

Gustafson: I have a "friend" who saw the bootleg. Let's call him... X. He liked it. It wasn't genre evolving, but it was a good summer movie. From the opening war montage to the relationship between Logan and Creed, the movie worked. Sure, it's going to drive the comic book crowd insane the way they play fast and loose with Deadpool, Gambit, White Queen... well, just about everyone, but it's a good movie. What's not getting a lot of attention is the wicked job Liev Schreiber does. I wouldn't mind a spin-off focused on him! At least that's what "X" told me.

Chamberlain: Why they added X-Men Origins to the title, I don't know. Just plain old WOLVERINE works for me, but that's less than a nitpick. Hugh Jackman doesn't do much for me in any of his other roles but he IS Wolverine and I'm anxious to see how he does in his own movie. I'm also glad to see characters like Deadpool and Gambit finally brought to life. Bring it on!

Brimfield: Marvel Studios can pretty much do no wrong at this point, right? The law of averages suggest they'll drop the ball at some point, but I doubt it'll be here. This one looks fantastic and will be my first summer cinema trip without a doubt. I should add the caveat that the only cinema visit I've made this year was to see Knowing, though.

MAY 8TH

Star Trek
Studio: Paramount
Directed by: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban
The plot: The origin story of Captain James T. Kirk, Spock and the crew of the USS Enterprise before they had boldly gone where no man had gone before.

Furious: I was somewhat nonplussed about this re-launch until I saw the FX heavy trailer… and I was blown away. The casting looks to be very solid and it should be one hell of a thrill ride. JJ Abrams is usually entertaining regardless of what he's doing but he seems to have excelled himself here. I'm sold.

Thomas: Advance buzz has been fantastic for this film, which has overcome my initial fears. Honestly, the trailers have been cool, but I hadn't really been convinced until recently; now, I'm fairly sure this is going to be bad-ass. J.J. Abrams is like Midas for the last few years, and I should have known better than to doubt him. The cast is fantastic and the movie looks on all accounts to be damn good.

Kristopowitz: I'm a mild fan of the original Star Trek, so I'm intrigued to see how the "updated cast" works together. The action sequences in the trailer look amazing, but I wonder if that stuff will end up hurting the movie. The original cast movies, while obviously much more polished and spectacular than the TV show, still mostly relied on the chemistry of the cast. It'll be interesting no matter what.

Lealos: Holy crap, this looks great. I have never been a big Star Trek fan although I never had much against it. I loved Wrath of Khan but none of the other movies seemed that great to me. This one has me really intrigued. The cast is top notch and the trailers look incredible. When I first heard about the reboot, I was indifferent. Now, I want to see it the minute it comes out. I hope the movie matches the marketing. I think it will.

Gustafson: I'm no trekker, trekkie, trek-a-mecka-ding-dong, but I'm sold on the hype and will be there opening night. That's what I'm hearing a lot. Non-Trek fans are really digging this movie. That's a win for the franchise. I may not be sporting the Spock ears (maybe a Jedi cloak to stir up the masses) but I think J.J. got it right.

Chamberlain: I've never been into Star Trek, but I'll make an exception for this. It really looks like a blast and it has a great cast to boot. I dig J.J. Abrams and all of his work, and the fact this is a reboot of sorts makes it accessible to a non Trekkie like me.

Brimfield: This looks resolutely un-Trek, but I wasn't a massive nerd for the series so that doesn't bother me so much. The trailer seems to present a spectacular sci-fi blockbuster and I'm all for that, and the sexy young cast will surely make this a mainstream hit.

Next Day Air
Studio: Summit
Directed by: Benny Boom
Starring: Mos Def, Donald Faison, Mike Epps
The plot: When a delivery man (Faison) leaves a package containing bricks of cocaine at the wrong address, it sets into motion a battle of wills and wits between the dealer, the intended recipients, and the people who have the drugs and plan to sell them off.

Furious: I checked the trailer out and it looks pretty funny. I like Donald Faison and Mos Def and they look to be well used. I'll probably rent this.

Thomas: This is, from the looks of the trailer, a comedy. I'll be honest, I didn't particularly laugh at any point in the trailer. The fact that Summit's put this up against Star Trek means that they don't expect much from it and are hoping for the counter-programming boost, though I really don't know how successful that's going to turn out. Mos Def has always entertained me with his films though, so it may be worth a DVD rental.

Kristopowitz: I think this flick could be one of those movies that could surprise people. The trailer is hilarious, and I'm always willing to see Mike Epps in something (I think the guy is quite funny). It'll get crushed by Star Trek and Wolverine, sure, but I think people should give it a shot anyway.

Lealos: Sorry, not the target demographic. It didn't even look that funny to me in the trailers. I just don't care.

Gustafson: Certain movies get a big screen release and it seems like they should be direct-to-video. I'm not saying this is one of them... well, maybe I am. I do want to see this, just not at the theater.

Chamberlain: Meh. I like Donald Faison, but that's about it.

Brimfield: TV movie? Some decent people in the cast, but this looks pretty uninspired.

MAY 15TH

Angels & Demons
Studio: Sony
Directed by: Ron Howard
Starring: Tom Hanks, Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgard
The plot: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon (Hanks) finds himself in Rome, where he has to race against time to prevent the Illuminati, a secret society, from putting in motion a terrorist act that could destroy the Vatican.

Furious: The first Dan Brown film; The Da Vinci Code was extremely tedious. I never read the book but if it's anything like the film I think I'll pass. One of the few decent things about the film was Tom Hanks though and he's back in Angels & Demons. Let's face it; this can't be any worse than the first film but my expectations are extremely low. It'll probably do a tonne of money but I suspect not as much as the Da Vinci Code.

Thomas: This is probably my second-most anticipated movie of the month. I read the Robert Langdon novels before Da Vinci Code attracted controversy as a movie in the making, and I read them in the right order - in the books, this one comes first. Angels & Demons always struck me as the more cinematic novel. The plot was more interesting with a cooler climax then Da Vinci's finish - which I always felt was the weakest part about that story. All the things I've seen about this one leads me to believe it's going to be a better movie than its predecessor, and I absolutely cannot wait.

Kristopowitz: I kind of liked The Da Vinci Code (the book is, was, and always will be terrible as Dan Brown is easily one of the worst writers of all time, but the movie was pretty decent) and I'm game to see Tom Hanks race against time to do whatever the heck it is he's doing in this movie (I wish he still had the long hair, though). What's more interesting to me, though, is the coming public meltdown of Bill Donoghue of the Catholic League. He's already started attacking Ron Howard, so I'm sure Tom Hanks and Ewan McGregor will be next in line.

Lealos: For those who don't know, this is based on the book that is actually before The Da Vinci Code in the series. I'm not sure how they are going about the timeline here (or if they even care about it), but my wife tells me the book was great. I heard an interview with Ron Howard who said this is a straight non-stop action movie which kind of disappoints me as I would have liked a deeper story with the subject matter. Regardless, it should be a fun summer flick.

Gustafson: Out of the two books, this was the better one. But that's not really saying anything. The first movie was unwatchable to me. Just couldn't get into it. I'll give this one a try... on DVD. Not really expecting it to be any different.

Chamberlain: I still haven't seen The Da Vinci Code, so I should probably take care of that before I see this one.

Brimfield: This gets a pass by virtue of not featuring the Hanks Mullet o' Doom. Come on folks, that was pretty much the only talking point of the last movie, why skimp on the mullety goodness here!

Management
Studio: Image
Directed by: Stephen Belber
Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Steve Zahn, Woody Harrelson, Josh Lucas
The plot: A traveling saleswoman (Aniston) tries to shake off a motel manager (Zahn) who chases her across the country after she has an ill-advised fling with him.

Furious: So stalking is acceptable as long as the target's boyfriend is a bit of a jerk? Don't get me wrong; I like Steve Zahn and I'm glad that Woody Harrelson is still getting work but this strikes me as a bit weird. Maybe I'd watch this with the wife as she's not opposed to rom-coms but I certainly wouldn't bring her attention to it.

Thomas: This one has made a couple film festivals appearance and gotten really good buzz. People give the Friends stars shit for their movie careers, but Jennifer Aniston has really handled things really smartly - she does a few big budget pieces that don't default to stupid rom-coms (even if they don't all work, they at least aren't lazy choices) and then a low-budget indy pic that wins her acclaim. It's a slow build to her movie career and is working out well for her. This will do practically nothing at the box office, being a limited release during a packed month, but I'll certainly be checking it out when it hits DVD.

Kristopowitz: Eh. I like Steve Zahn and Woody Harrelson, but this movie looks terrible. And the presence of Josh Lucas isn't exactly encouraging, either. Remember Poseidon?

Lealos: This movie has a couple of things going for it. Steve Zahn as a leading man is inspired. He is so underrated and needs to be in many, many more movies than he has been. The second thing is Woody Harrelson. He looks funny as hell in this. The guy can do anything. The story seems a little stalker like and I don't know if it will actually work but Zahn and Harrelson makes this worth keeping on your radar.

Gustafson: I like Steve Zahn. I like Woody Harrelson. But this movie just isn't rubbing me the right way. It's pretty much a stalker film with a odd looking Jennifer Aniston. Seriously, what's up with her look in the trailer? Was she trying to look that way? Movies like this bug me because if it was an ugly or weird looking guy, it would be classified as a horror/stalker film.

Chamberlain: So, the dude's a stalker? Stalker comedy, that's an odd choice. I like Steve Zahn but this just doesn't look that funny.

Brimfield: This one was looking interesting until I saw Lucas in the cast list. No thanks!

MAY 22ND

Terminator: Salvation
Studio: Warner Bros.
Directed by: Joseph Nichol
Starring: Christian Bale, Sam Worthington, Anton Yelchin, Moon Bloodgood
The plot: John Connor (Bale) is joined in his attempt to defeat Skynet and its army of Terminators by Marcus Wright (Worthington), a man who apparently has been rescued from the past, though Connor wonders if instead he's been sent from the future as a foil to his plan.

Furious: I'm a pretty huge Terminator mark. Hell, I watched The Terminator this week! In fact at the time of writing I'm about halfway through Terminator 2. I just feel the urge to revisit the earlier films before seeing Salvation at the cinema. And that's the thing… of all the movies released this month the one that I'm absolutely guaranteed to see at the cinema is this one. Which is why it should do pretty well financially. I still have my doubts about McG but if he can produce the goods here he'll win over the public. As a fan of the franchise I'm onboard regardless of the outcome. So bring on May 22nd. I don't have anything else on that weekend. Oh wait, I'm getting married on the 23rd. Maybe I can sneak this in as part of the honeymoon.

Thomas: Here's what I'm talking about. I'm a huge fan of the Terminator franchise, to the point that I even own T3. Since Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles unfortunately seems to be all but cancelled, the movies are all I have to look forward to the continuation of the franchise. Luckily it doesn't seem to be letting down, as every trailer I've seen has just been phenomenal and Christian Bale seems to be nailing John Connor perfectly. It's nice to finally see them move into the war, and this is undoubtedly the film of the month for me.

Kristopowitz: Even with McG directing and the PG-13 rating that people are still bitching about (wait for the eventual "unrated DVD" that will come out at Christmas), I think this will be a pretty okay summer movie distraction. The trailers have been spectacular, the Terminators look great, and the mega future war scope seems appropriate. I just hope that, in the end, the movie isn't stupid.

Lealos: This movie looks amazing. I really, really hope McG proves his early naysayers wrong because I want this to be good in the worst way. I am a HUGE Christian Bale fan. The guy was great as a child actor and really won me over in American Psycho. Batman was just icing on the cake. Now, he gets another huge franchise and I can't wait to see his take on John Connor. There is a spoiler twist that was already ruined for me a few months back, but to see how the movie reaches that point should be a blast. I actually liked Terminator 3 and loved the way it ended, so I am salivating for this latest installment.

Gustafson: Is it just me or does the plot smell a little Battlestar-ish? Instead of Skynet wanting to kill humans, they are harvesting them for a weird robot/human cyborg. A little? Maybe? Regardless, this will do bangin' business and keep the geek nation happy by filling up their Bale quota.

Chamberlain: YES. Fucking YES.

Brimfield: What Jason said. This is shaping up to be a HUGE movie, even if I do have a sneaking suspicion the box office will be lower than expected. The buzz for this one has even gotten me past my reservations about McG, and I'm expecting big things here.

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Directed by: Shawn Levy
Starring: Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Amy Adams, Steve Coogan
The plot: Security guard Larry Daley (Stiller) infiltrates the Smithsonian Institute in order to rescue Jedediah (Wilson) and Octavius (Coogan), who have been shipped to the museum by mistake.

Furious: Ben Stiller is pretty much an automatic pass for me. I don't feel like I'm missing anything by not watching his films.

Thomas: The original one was actually fairly good, against all odds, and they've added a couple good people to the cast to amp this one up such as Amy Adams and Bill Hader. I'm not too fond of Jonah Hill in his role from what I've seen of it, but if his screen time can be kept limited then this will be an enjoyable little waste of time.

Kristopowitz: I enjoyed the first movie, so I'm interested in seeing if Levy and Stiller still have the "magic." This one looks much bigger than the first one, so there's a chance that the movie is going to try to do too much too quickly. That Abe Lincoln thing, though, kind of weirds me out.

Lealos: A movie for the kids. Will the real Ben Stiller please step up? I guess if he is alternating between kid's fare (this) and adult comedies (Tropic Thunder), I can deal with that. I just want his next Tropic Thunder and will probably wait this one out.

Gustafson: I caught the first one on DVD and was surprised how much I enjoyed it. This one seems to be in the same vein, but for some reason I think this will be a case of "If X worked well in the first one, then let's multiply it by 100!"

Chamberlain: The first one was cute. Was it really a movie that needed a sequel though? I don't know. I'll probably check it out to see if it justifies itself.

Brimfield: Most unwieldy title of the year? Not sure why Adams and Coogan see fit to drag themselves down with this sort of material and the residual smell that ensues from any association with Owen Wilson, but I suppose everyone has to eat.

Dance Flick
Studio: Paramount
Directed by: Damien Wayans
Starring: Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Shoshana Bush
The plot: Street dancer Thomas Uncles (Damon Wayans, Jr.) is from the wrong side of the tracks, but his bond with the beautiful Megan White (Bush) might help the duo realize their dreams as they enter in the mother of all dance battles.

Furious: Remember when the Wayans brothers made movie you wanted to see? Well, Damon Wayans did. Marlon & Shawn? Less so. I think this isn't for me.

Thomas: No. Not wasting another word on trash like this. Sorry.

Kristopowitz: I'm a fan of the Wayans clan and I'm always interested in what they're doing. This is apparently a new, younger group of Wayans, so it'll be interesting to see how different they are from Keenan and Damon. They're usually pretty good at the movie parody thing.

Lealos: Ok, Disaster Movie, Epic Movie and Meet the Spartans were horrendous films. I liked Scary Movie, and this is by the Wayan's brothers but looks like the worst thing I could ever imagine. The minute the pregnant chick in the trailer does her dance move and her baby pops out and busts a move, I refused to give this any further chances. It looks uninspired and stupid in the worst way.

Gustafson: Pass. Pass. Pass. The spoof films have been taken and dragged down to the mud where they have maybe one or two decent jokes and base a movie around those. For some reason they keep giving the Wayans money, so someone must be watching them.

Chamberlain: Wayans brothers, that's an automatic miss.

Brimfield: There are no words.

MAY 29TH

Up
Studio: Pixar
Directed by: Pete Docter; Bob Peterson
Starring: Edward Asner, Jordan Nagai, Christopher Plummer
The plot: By tying thousands of balloon to his home, 78-year-old Carl Fredricksen sets out to fulfill his lifelong dream to see the wilds of South America. Right after lifting off, however, he learns he isn't alone on his journey, since Russell, a wilderness explorer 70 years his junior, has inadvertently become a stowaway on the trip.

Furious: I know there are those who didn't like Cars but for me Pixar has one of the best records of any studio out there for consistency. And it does feel like their projects get more and more ambitious capped off by last year's entry WALL-E, which was phenomenal. This might even top WALL-E for ambition with an incredible plot and scope.

Thomas: I know I said this last year with WALL-E and it turned out being good, but I'm just not feeling this one yet. Maybe more commercials and the like will get me jazzed, and it could well be another great Pixar film, but I haven't been able to get too excited about it. Will this finally be the first time Pixar swings and misses? Honestly, it might well be... we'll have to wait and see.

Kristopowitz: 'm shocked that some people are actually betting against this movie succeeding. It'll do fine. I think the whimsical house floating away via balloons thing is a fantastic idea. And what better actor to get to voice a grumpy old man than Ed freaking Asner? This is the first Pixar movie I'm actually excited about seeing.

Lealos: I have heard people complaining about the 3D, calling it a gimmick that will pass. I can't understand that way of thinking at all. If anyone has seen Coraline or Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D and thinks 3D should go away, that person is crazy. They probably also long for the days of VHS and hope this DVD gimmick will go away. Those first two animated 3D movies of 2009 were two of the most beautiful, stunning animated movies I have ever seen and I can't wait to see what Pixar can do with the technology. 3D isn't about throwing things at you anymore (although it is still an option), it is about rendering the world of the movie in a breathtaking new way. Even if the story of Up is not up-to-par, doubtful since it is a Pixar picture, I want to see it just to see Pixar animating in 3D. I can't wait for the day 2D animated movies are a thing of the past because they are boring and ugly in comparison.

Gustafson: I really like how Pixar doesn't rest on their laurels. Look at their catalog and they don't have a cookie cutter feel to them. Usually when they announce their newest movie I think, "How are they going to pull that off?" Wall-E for example. I remember thinking, "Man, how are they going to have the first half of a movie about a robot without any dialog?" Same with Up. The premise sounds... different... but I'm more than looking forward to the ride.

Chamberlain: Gotta love Pixar, right? And this one just has a really cute premise that sounds like a lot of fun. Animation is top notch as usual. Ed Asner is a great choice for the lead.

Brimfield: This looks gorgeous, and even if it only meets the quality of Pixar's worst output it'll still be a thoroughly enjoyable film. That said, I have even higher expectations for Up. Sleeper hit of the summer methinks.

Drag Me to Hell
Studio: Universal
Directed by: Sam Raimi
Starring: Alison Lohman, Justin Long, Ruth Livier
The plot: A loan officer (Lohman) ordered to evict an old woman from her home finds herself the recipient of a supernatural curse which turns her life into a living nightmare. Desperate, she turns to a seer for help, and learns she only has a short period of time before she is literally ushered into Hell.

Furious: Raimi has deliberately avoided horror movies after making his name in them with the Evil Dead series. It seems after being mired in high budget experiences with the Spider-Man franchise that he'll welcome a small budget movie where he gets the chance to demonstrate a great deal of freedom. Freedom he seemed to lose during the construction of Spider-Man 3, a horribly overblown exercise. This could be a great film for fans of the horror genre. Raimi understands what is scary and should strip away the usual predictable Hollywood nonsense and clichés.

Thomas: Thank the gods, a real, honest-to-god horror pic! Yes, I know it's PG-13, but from all looks of it it's PG-13 in the same way that The Dark Knight was and not The Unborn, The Haunting of Molly Hartley or Prom Night. This looks like Sam Raimi in full form as his horror auteur self, and after horror's been diluted into torture porn, remakes and "based on a true story" hauntfests, it's a welcome film for me. Everyone else may be seeing Up this weekend, but I'm down for some scares.

Kristopowitz: Sam Raimi's return to horror. Who gives a hooey if it's PG-13? It's Sam Raimi! This should be, well, awesome. Just awesome.

Lealos: Sam Raimi is back where he started, directing a horror movie. I feared he was reaching Bruce Campbell levels where he was ready to leave that genre behind (in a recent Empire interview, Campbell said he will turn down any movie involving zombies). Of course, I got excited when Raimi started Ghost House but then we got The Grudge (aka, one of the worst horror movies ever made) and nothing great has ever come out of the production house. This is different - Raimi is directing his first pure horror film since Evil Dead II, reason to get excited. Bring it...

Gustafson: This seems like a nice palette cleanser for Raimi. Not my cup of tea, but should do well for those who have been clamoring for another horror fest from Sammy boy.

Chamberlain: Not really a horror movie guy, but Sam Raimi is the man. Period. And this one at least looks imaginative, unlike most slasher/torture porn movies these days.

Brimfield: Not my sort of thing, but I'm at least curious to see how Raimi handles a return to his horror roots.



The votes are in... Terminator: Salvation is the 411 staff's hit of the month, while Dance Flick is our shit of the month!


That's all for now, folks. Stay tuned next month for a look at Year One, Transformers 2 and a whole lot more!

All poster images courtesy of IMDB.