Made of Honor
Studio: Sony
Directed by: Paul Weiland
Starring: Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Kevin McKidd
The plot: A reformed serial dater (Dempsey) is asked by his best friend (Monaghan) to be the maid of honor at her wedding, completely unaware that he has designs on her heart.
Harris: Cheeseball, high-concept Hollywood romantic comedy that I absolutely do not care for. Sounds like the reverse version of My Best Friend's Wedding. Why the hell would a bride ask a guy to be a MAID of honor. GUYS ARE NOT MAIDS!
Lealos: It's this month's chick flick and great counter-programming to the release of Iron Man. This type of scheduling always works, as the girls who don't care about super heroes, explosions and awesome fights will have something to watch in its place. Believe me, while Iron Man will make its share of big money; this flick will pull in a healthy sum as well. Patrick Dempsey is building a solid repertoire of films (Enchanted, Sweet Home Alabama) to entice the young ladies and I think it will come close to the $100 million mark by the time it is done.
Furious: I get the feeling this was already made, about a dozen times. This will be the chick flick that some poor bastard will get dragged to when all he wants to do is see Iron Man.
McGee: This looks like zany, heartwarming fun, and I can't wait to see it…. and no, I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that.
Thomas: Ahh, yes. Michelle Monaghan's starting to get star power, so it's about time she flushed it away with a stupid marriage rom-com. This sounds like every other shitty marriage comedy out there, the quality of which have been very few and far-between. I like Dempsey, and I like Monaghan, but this pretty much looks like crap.
Kristopowitz: I actually have a small interest in seeing this movie, mostly because I'm interested to see if Patrick Dempsey's Grey's Anatomy TV persona translates to the big screen. He's not in a supporting role this time, like in Enchanted or Freedom Writers, so it's all up to him. Will Dempsey be able to make it as a movie star, or will he have to be content to make millions on television?
Snyder: Uh-huh. I'm sorry, I don't care if you're a girl, or if you have a huge crush on "McDreamy" here, but there is absolutely NO reason to check this out instead of Iron Man.
Cusson: This movie is like the male version of My Best Friend's Wedding. I'd be willing to bet a significant amount of money that the guy ends up with the girl. Why the hell would I want to see a movie starring Patrick Dempsey anyway? I don't see what the big deal is. He doesn't strike me as being good-looking and he's not that great of an actor.
Chamberlain: Any movie with ‘serial dater' in the synopsis is going to have a steep hill to climb with me. When said dater is not a hot woman but instead Dr. McCrappy or whatever they call him on that doctor show, I roll boulders down my hill and don't stop until it's good and crushed.
Brimfield: Hopefully this will be at least competently made, although I sincerely doubt I'll ever see it. Still, Monaghan is invariably radiant in anything she appears in, so at least there should be on redeeming feature. No doubt though there'll be a high number of ladies heading to see this while their fellas take in the next film on this list...
Iron Man
Studio: Paramount
Directed by: Jon Favreau
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges
The plot: Inventor Tony Stark (Downey) dons his most powerful creation, a high-tech suit of armor, to fight the Mandarin, a dark-minded scientific genius bent on spreading his influence worldwide.
Harris: The hype and marketing is definitely there, but is the audience interest and the movie there as well? That remains to be seen, but Iron Man definitely has an advantageous release date. But sometimes you don't know what will happen when these movies come out. Iron Man definitely looks like a fun summer ride, but if it turns out to be a lame-duck, cheesy, stupid movie like the Fantastic Four movies audiences will reject it after the first week. And May is still a competitive month. I'm predicting an opening weekend in the ballpark of $60-80 million for the movie, but it could be higher.
Lealos: The only thing that will hold back Iron Man is the lack of familiarity with the majority of the film going audience. He is no Spider Man or Hulk, but for comic fans, he is possibly the most important super hero in comics today. What will sell this movie are the trailers, and I think, for the most part, they have been tremendous. I am more pumped to see this movie than I was when I first heard it was being made. Robert Downey Jr. always brings the goods and I think he will be a fantastic Tony Stark. This might be the best balls-to-the-walls action movie of the summer and is one of my most anticipated movies of the year. I would not be surprised to see it hit close to its $80 to $90 million opening weekend projections, but it will probably be closer to $60 million. The next step is word of mouth. If good, expect to see Iron Man rocket past the $200 million mark domestically, which is important considering its rather large budget.
Furious: I love Iron Man. He's not my favorite superhero character but he's up there. Tony Stark is such a great character and having Bob Downey play him is inspired. As soon as I heard he'd been cast I thought ‘that's who I would have cast too'. I also like Terry Howard and Jeff Bridges so the support is fine. I really hope there are plans for sequels, and that's without seeing this which shows a certain degree of confidence, because Downey playing alcoholic Tony Stark may be the greatest thing ever. He'll channel those personal demons. Plus it gives you a perfect trilogy set up without ever having to think about it.
McGee: Robert Downey, Jr. was born to play Tony Stark. That's just the truth. The trailers have been great so far, but they give the impression that this movie may be leaning a little too far to the goofy side of things. That's troublesome, as fans know there's a dark side to the Iron Man story. But if they can get the balance between comedy, drama and action right, this could be a worthy addition to the Marvel movie pantheon.
Thomas: YES! NOW we're talking. Everything about this screams "amazing" to me. I'm a long-time Iron Man fan, and Downey is perfect casting to play the alcoholic playboy. Throw in several other award-winning actors and what looks to be incredible effects and fight scenes, and this, quite simply, THE movie to see this month. Hell, it could quite possibly be the movie to trump the original Spider-Man as the best Marvel movie to date.
Kristopowitz: This looks like a blast. I didn't like the first part of the trailer, where Downey, Jr. is a fast talking smart ass. But as soon as the Black Sabbath "Iron Man" cranked up and we got to see Iron Man kicking butt and taking names, I was convinced this could be great. And each successive trailer has been better than the last. I can't wait. And I can't wait to see how this movie works in the apparent Marvel Comics grand scheme of things (the potential Avengers movie and all that).
Snyder: Finally! I've been eagerly anticipating this one ever since Marvel and director Jon Favreau announced the pitch-perfect casting of Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. The only question left now is whether it can possibly live up to the killer trailers we've seen so far. I'm betting it can.
Cusson: I've had a lot of confidence since I first heard Robert Downey Jr. was the man assigned to play the comic book super hero. It's just an excellent idea to have a man with so many demons playing Tony Stark. Plus, I think it makes sense since Downey has the look and the ideal age. I could never imagine Stark being played by some young actor since Stark strikes me as being a little bit older and more sophisticated.
Chamberlain: This flick looks all kinds of awesome. I was never a huge Iron Man fan but he translates perfectly to the silver screen and I can't wait to see the results. Add in Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark (badass casting, I must say) and my long standing love for all things comic books and I'll definitely be in line.
Brimfield: I've been looking forward to this one for a good while, and I'm not even particularly a fan of the Iron Man comics. The movie looks to be solidly constructed [zing!] and has a more exciting cast than virtually any other comic book movie yet made (outside of Sin City and maybe the more recent Batmans). I do have one or two slight reservations about its mass-market appeal, but it won't take much for those to be quashed.
Son of Rambow
Studio: Paramount Vintage
Directed by: Garth Jennings
Starring: Bill Milner, Will Poulter
The plot: A shy boy growing up in a sheltered British community makes an unlikely collaborative partnered in his rough-and-tough schoolmate in his attempt to film his own shot-by-shot version of First Blood.
Harris: It looks like a cute, little foreign indy film about a couple of kids. I probably won't see it for a while though. The trailer is decent, but outside of that I have no desire to see it.
Lealos: I am really interested in this movie. I remember hearing about it a long time ago, right after all the news about the kids who made the Raiders of the Lost Ark shot-for-shot remake hit the Internet. Garth Jennings, who directed the entertaining Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy gives it another go by breaking the cardinal rule - Never Work with Children. The final result is a movie that has received a number of favorable reviews and might become the first indie darling of the year. The trailer has been online for a while and looks like a charming and relatively funny film, but I doubt it will get a very wide release and many (including myself) will have to wait till DVD to see it.
Furious: Garth Jennings did Hitchhiker's Guide in case you were interested. I personally didn't like it but I can see why people would. This is something a bit more personal and down to Earth for him as its based on his own experiences. Reviews over in the UK have been really positive.
McGee: Whenever I use the word "cute" to describe kids or movies, it's usually with the greatest sarcasm and disdain. However, this flick just looks adorable and quirky in all the right ways. You have to admire the Brits and their off-kilter humor.
Thomas: I hadn't heard anything about this until I saw the trailer, which admittedly shows some opportunity for quality. It doesn't have me particularly excited, but it doesn't look too bad, and I'll check it out when it hits DVD for sure.
Kristopowitz: This movie sounds like a bunch of fun. It sounds just weird enough to work.
Snyder: A strange, but cute concept and the trailer actually had a lot of laughs. It definitely looks worth a viewing. And hey, at the very least, it certainly can't be any stupider than the other recent Rambo movie.
Cusson: I actually saw the trailer for this film before the latest Rambo film. The word I would use to describe this film is cute. I'm not sure whether it's going to be good or not, but I'd certainly see this over some of the drek coming out this month. In an era of people having the ability to make films so easily using advanced technology, this film is going to capitalize on that in sort of the same way Be Kind, Rewind did.
Chamberlain: No.
Brimfield: This has been on release in the UK for a few weeks, and while I haven't had the chance to see it yet (it certainly seems to be more of a rental film) it's been getting decent-to-good reviews, and the premise is both charming and resonant with a large number of moviegoers - who didn't want to be an action hero after seeing Rambo in action for the first time?
Mister Lonely
Studio: IFC
Directed by: Harmony Korine
Starring: Diego Luna, Samantha Morton, Denis Lavant
The plot: A Michael Jackson impersonator (Luna) ekeing out a life in Paris joins a Marilyn Monroe look-alike (Morton) on a trip back to her commune in the Scottish Highlands -- a seaside castle at which Michael discovers an alternate family of impersonators all in preparation for their first-ever gala.
Harris: Never heard of this movie, and I probably won't even see it at all. Concept just sounds too weird.
Lealos: The "other indie release" is nowhere near as interesting as Son of Rambow. But the plot sounds – strange. A Michael Jackson impersonator meets a Marilyn Monroe impersonator and goes to her commune where she lives with Charlie Chaplin and her daughter Shirley Temple? Sounds like something that will only find a home on DVD – if at all. It's an IFC flick, so it's got television distribution to fall back on.
Furious: The word "offbeat" springs to mind. It's certainly different but I'll wait on some reviews before considering it.
McGee: Say what now? Good lord, that sounds bizarre! But, bless me, I want to see it!
Thomas: I'm sorry, this just looks retarded in every sense of the word. I love independent film-making, but this just looks like the kind of "indy film" that tries way, way too hard to be indy. Samantha Morton is far better then this, and I'm disappointed in her. And it doesn't help that the Michael Jackson impersonator, quite frankly, looks nothing like him.
Kristopowitz: This sounds like it should be hilarious. It probably won't be, though. You're probably meant to take the movie "seriously" and gain some kind of deep life knowledge from it.
Snyder: Huh? There's a fine line between "quirky" and "stupid," and – having not seen or heard anything about this film until this moment – it's far too early to tell which way this one will fall. Whatever the case may be, it certainly doesn't sound like anything I'd go out of my to check out during an already crowded summer movie season.
Cusson: This appears to be one of the more bizarre films coming out this month. I had never heard of this film before reading about it on this roundtable. After doing some reading, I may have to find time to check it out. This looks different and unique. Not sure how good or bad it will be, but I'll certainly give it a shot over something like Speed Racer.
Chamberlain: They probably could have gotten the real Mike to star if they'd tried.
Brimfield: I have severe doubts about Luna's competency against an actress of Morton's caliber - this is the guy who was in Dirty Dancing 2: Havana Nights, in case you're wondering about the name. This has a fascinating concept though, and while it's sure to have only a limited run in the cinemas I think there are many potentially worse films on release this month.
MAY 9TH
Speed Racer
Studio: Warner Bros.
Directed by: Andy & Larry Wachowski
Starring: Emile Hirsch, Matthew Fox, Christina Ricci, Susan Sarandon, John Goodman
The plot: Speed Racer (Hirsch), a skilled young car driver who belongs to a family of gearheads, is blackmailed by the head of the nefarious corporation Royalton Industries to participate in The Crucible -- the annual cross-country rally that claimed his brother's life years ago. Behind the wheel of the Mach 5, his father's greatest invention, Speed goes head-to-head with his chief rival, the mysterious-yet-familiar Racer X (Fox).
Harris: I was never a big fan of Speed Racer or any of the attempted animated relaunches. This movie looks too ridiculous and like it wants to be Spy Kids. I think it will just be too bizarre for most audiences. Besides that, the dialogue sounds terrible. Good dialogue has never been a strong suit of the Wachowski Bros., but they were able to hide it a little in The Matrix.
Lealos: I really want this to be good. I am, unapologetically, a fan of all three Matrix movies. Yes, the third was a little (ok, a lot) overblown with way too much exposition, but I thought they looked great. The problem with Speed Racer is it looks confusing and a little too childish for my taste. I guess the question is whether or not the brothers Wachowski can pull another ace out of their creative decks and give us something as cool as Bullet Time was when it was first unveiled. I don't think they will and the trailers make it look too much like a video game than a cool, cutting edge movie. I doubt it will be anywhere as good as The Matrix, or even V for Vendetta. It's rated PG, so I think it might bring in the kids and thanks to the monkey and cartoon lineage earn its $100 million budget back and then some. It should be more successful overseas, and make most it's money there, I would venture.
Furious: The trailer makes it look garish. I never liked the cartoon to be honest and I don't particularly care for the Wachowskis who've only made one good film. If it actually works I'll be surprised.
McGee: This is either going to be revolutionary or a total train-wreck. Based on the trailers and my memories of the cartoon, I'm leaning toward the latter. But the Brothers Wachowski turned the movie world on its ear once before, so who knows? The movie looks pretty weird, and the marketing seems to favor the kiddy audience, but I honestly think there is potential for something amazing here. I'm willing to give it a chance, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Thomas: I'll confess, I don't get what people see in the Speed Racer cartoon. I like the Wachowskis; V for Vendetta is one of my all-time favorite films, and is FAR better then any of the Matrix movies (yes, even the original). I also like Emile Hirsch and Christina Ricci; you would have to think Susan Sarandon wouldn't sign on unless it was a quality film. Unfortunately this looks, excuse me for saying so, god-awful. I have no doubt it'll make its money back, and some people will love it. I don't see myself being one of those people, at all.
Kristopowitz: I've never been much of a Speed Racer fan, either, but I'm interested in seeing how this movie turns out. It looks insane. Will the characters be so overwhelmed by the special effects and the action that it's just a bore for everyone but the smallest of children? And will anyone have a flashy screen induced stroke?
Snyder: This already has a "love it or hate it" vibe going, just from the trailers. Personally, I think it looks fantastic, and give the Wachowskis (that's what we're calling them now, right? I'm not sure the "brothers" label still applies) tons of credit for continuing to try to bring something new to the big screen. Sure, it looks over-the-top, ridiculous, and corny…but it's a freaking Speed Racer movie!! I think this has a very good chance of erasing the bad taste the last Matrix film left in most moviegoers' mouths.
Cusson: I have a hard time even watching the trailer for this film since it looks to freaky and off. I think people are going to be turned off by this film simply because the Wachowskis are attached to it. Some people still haven't forgiven them for those craptacular Matrix sequels. Just because something was a popular Saturday morning cartoon doesn't mean it should be a movie. One of these days, studios will understand this and prevent stuff like this from coming out.
Chamberlain: The visuals in this film look amazing, and I anticipate being totally blown away by the racing scenes. It's got a strong cast and I'm anxious to see the Wachowskis' first follow up to their Matrix trilogy.
Brimfield: 2008's most successful epilepsy inducer? I almost had a seizure watching the bright flashing colors in the trailer, but outside of the undeniably impressive-looking production design I haven't seen much that endears this movie to me. I have the feeling the Wachowskis may well spend the rest of the careers suffering under the burden of The Matrix, but I'd like this to be a success, if only for their sakes (and, of course, the fans of the original show).
Redbelt
Studio: Sony Classics
Directed by: David Mamet
Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Tim Allen, Emily Mortimer
The plot: A fateful event serves as the first chapter in a new story for top Jiu-Jitsu instructor Mike Terry (Ejiofor). Though he has shied away from the professional side of the medium -- opting instead to run his own struggling self-defense studio -- circumstances conspire to force him to step into the ring for money for the first time.
Harris: Cool, an MMA movie with Randy Couture. It looks a lot better than the trash that was Never Back Down, but the gimmicks they put in the film look silly. Why can't we just see a movie about professional MMA with more legitimate MMA fights?
Lealos: David Mamet is making an MMA movie. That is so freaking cool. There are two reasons this movie will be awesome. This first is that DAVID FREAKING MAMET IS MAKING AN MMA MOVIE. The second is that Chiwetel Ejiofor is on the verge of being great. He was fantastic in Children of Men and Inside Man and I am certain he will be great in this movie. I don't know about Tim Allen, but Mamet specializes in dialogue, so if he can just deliver his lines we should be good. I also don't know how the actual fight scenes will look, as that is not really a Mamet specialty. But - the dialogue. Just thinking of this movie coming out makes me want to pop in Glengarry Glen Ross just to watch the master at work. I am more excited about this than Speed Racer, that's for damn sure.
Furious: First prize is money. Second prize… set of steak knives. I want, nay demand, an Alec Baldwin cameo in every David Mamet film.
McGee: This sounds like so much generic, testosterone drivel, but David Mamet's involvement should at least add some intrigue. And lots of bad words.
Thomas: Chiwetel Ejiofor. David Mamet. Emily Mortimer. Tim Allen. Which of these do not belong? Now, anyone who doubts Ejiofor as an actor only need look at Serenity, American Gangster or, better yet, the amazing Talk to Me from last year. From the trailers, he looks to be stepping it up to his usual talent. This looks like a really interesting film, and I hope it does well.
Kristopowitz: Looks like a great, butt kicking martial arts esque movie with David Mamet running the show. An interesting combination. Of course, the big wild card here will be Tim Allen. This is a "serious" movie, and Allen isn't known for his "serious" movie work. Will people both be able to accept him in a movie like this and or even show up to see it since he's in it?
Snyder: Well, let's face it…we've all been waiting for David Mamet to make that mixed-martial-arts movie we always knew he had in him. But seriously, Mamet's involvement in this gives it a certain pedigree it wouldn't necessarily have otherwise, as does the fact that it stars the excellent Ejiofor. It's not going to compete with summer's big dogs, but I could see it being something of a sleeper and doing alright for itself.
Cusson: If it wasn't for the fact that David Mamet was directing, I'm not even sure I would give this the time of day. However, he is and I think there is at least some potential here. It could end up being the best movie of the weekend when you look at its competition,. But I think it'll end up making the least amount of money. Isn't that how it usually goes?
Chamberlain: This could be interesting... good cast and a recipe for some cool action.
Brimfield: Once again, Chiwetel Ejiofor proves his is the hardest-to-spell name in all of showbusiness. I'm torn between the genuine intrigue of seeing him team up with Mamet, and the apathy that Tim Allen engenders whenever he's on the screen. Another one for eventual rental, methinks.
What Happens in Vegas
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Directed by: Tom Vaughan
Starring: Cameron Diaz, Ashton Kutcher, Queen Latifah
The plot: Joy (Diaz) and Jack (Kutcher) meet while on a Las Vegas bender, where their drunken nuptials are only part of a larger problem: What to do when Jack wins $3 million with Joy's quarter, and they are forced to spend six months as wife and husband if they are to see a penny of their winnings.
Harris:Ashton Kutcher movies suck. Guess Who and A Lot Like Love were both execrable trash. Kutcher is one of the worst comedic performers ever, and his timing is terrible. This movie looks awful, and I will never see it.
Lealos: It's the latest failure at the hands of Ashton Kutcher. I actually like Kutcher – in small doses – and not as the star of the movie. This will be another Just Married, and that is not necessarily a good thing. Ashton needs to make another Dude, Where's My Car. I could get behind that. It'll be lucky to hit $30 million, and won't make anyone forget about Made of Honor, which will destroy any hopes this movie had of succeeding.
Furious: There's something about Ashton Kutcher that rubs me up the wrong way. It's probably just that he's such a prick on Punk'd. He's trying hard to change his image as an actor and has taken on some decent roles (Butterfly Effect, Bobby, The Guardian). This one I'm not so sure about. It's an interesting idea but I couldn't bring myself to watch Just Married so I doubt I'll sit through this.
McGee: Remember that Cape Fear parody on The Simpsons? Remember the sound Sideshow Bob makes when he keeps stepping on the rakes? That's the sound I make every time there's a new Ashton Kutcher movie.
Thomas: This one just has UTTER DISASTER written all over it. I'm not a Kutcher hater, but nothing about this movie looks remotely good. It's the exact type of retarded, clichéd plot that we see again and again in romantic comedies. Kutcher looks out of place in the trailer, and Diaz looks like she's doing her usual "Hey, I'm in a screwball comedy, act silly" routine. This gets a very, very solid "Avoid" preview from me.
Kristopowitz: This looks incredibly boring. It doesn't look the least bit funny. And any movie that decided to hire Dennis Miller for any reason doesn't deserve my or anyone else's money.
Snyder: Oh man, I bet that when these two characters are forced to live together, all manner of hilarity ensues!! Anyway, any actual comedic talent Diaz has will almost certainly be negated by the huge sack of abrasive unfunny that is Ashton Kutcher, so you can count me out.
Cusson: I've seen some trailers for this, and I have to say this has the potential to be one of the worst movies of the year. I don't care how hot Cameron Diaz looks in this movie (and she looks mighty good), the entire premise and how it will probably end up, them falling in love and sharing the money anyway, is more like a sitcom then real film. Big pass on this one.
Chamberlain: ... goes unwatched by me.
Brimfield: Guff, and nothing more. Diaz is usually pleasing to watch in action, but on the other side of the coin you have Kutcher and Latifah, two of the more annoying "comic" actors working today. This looks like it'll be one of those movies where the phrase "for some reason" crops up in every reviewer's attempts to summarize the plotline.
MAY 16TH
The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
Studio: Walt Disney
Directed by: Andrew Adamson
Starring: Ben Barnes, Liam Neeson, Tilda Swinton
The plot: With an evil king ruling over Narnia, the Pevensie children are summoned to help restore the throne to its rightful heir, Prince Caspian.
Harris: People underestimated The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe in 2005. And people are once again underestimating Prince Caspian in 2008. But it will be great, and it will do good business. Nothing wrong with good, wholesome fantasy family-oriented entertainment.
Lealos: The first Narnia flick made over $700 million. No matter how good this one is, I don't think it will reach that level and there is a very good reason why: Indiana. Jones. No matter how good this movie is, it will be hurt drastically by coming out a week before the new Indy movie. I think it will make close to $200 million by the end of its run and make a ton overseas. That will still be good as the budget was cut by quite a bit from the first movie. I just don't see it beating Indiana Jones in its second week. I see close to $80 million for its opening weekend and then a steep drop the next week when Indy hits. Then it will compete with Indy for about a month until the next big thing (Wall-E?) hits.
Furious: I thought the first one was disappointing but I do seem to be in the minority. Ben Barnes is allegedly channeling Inigo Montoya for Prince Caspian so that alone should make the sequel worthwhile. I'd question them opening the week before Indy but both films should make good money.
McGee: I was honestly shocked that Disney managed not to screw the first movie up. In terms of quality, I think Prince Caspian will deliver, but it's in serious danger of getting lost in the shuffle during such a crowded month. I just hope that the competition doesn't eat into this one's profits too much, because I'd love to see the Narnia books continue to get the stellar adaptations they deserve.
Thomas: The first trailer was, with the heavy focus on the train station, very clearly an attempt by Disney to make the film seem Harry Potter-ish. I think this was a mistake, as The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe did perfectly fine on its own, having out-grossed three of the five Potter films to date (including Goblet of Fire, which came out the same year as Lion). The film looks amazing, and a step up from the already-good first. It's going to do well at the theaters, even with Indy coming out the week after thanks to the Christian audience and those who've been waiting for a really good medieval fantasy epic to hit the screen since Lord of the Rings. I know I'll be there.
Kristopowitz: I didn't see the first one, and I really have very little interest in seeing this one. The effects look great, though. Maybe Howard Berger will end up winning another make up Oscar for this one.
Snyder: The first flick was decent, if somewhat underwhelming. The trailer for this one suggests that it's going to be a lot better, but still… I just don't think this franchise is really grabbing people the way they originally hoped it would. And now, with the news that Guillermo Del Toro's Hobbit is officially on the way (not to mention three more Harry Potter movies to come), Narnia doesn't stand much chance of ever climbing to the top of the fantasy heap.
Cusson: When you consider that I only thought the first one was okay and the fact that the guy playing looks like a Ken doll, I think I'll wait for the DVD. Plus, the real highlight of the first film, Tilda Swinton, will probably have a reduced role. It'll be interesting to see how this movie does considering what's coming up the following week and some of the movies it's having to follow.
Chamberlain: Love it! I loved the Chronicles of Narnia as a kid, really enjoyed the first film of this new series and I'm expecting great things from this second installment.
Brimfield: For me this is simply going to be a placeholder until Voyage of the Dawn Treader gets made, as that was the only book in the series I ever found truly enjoyable. However, this looks to be inoffensive family fantasy, and should be the best (or at least, most competent) that genre has to offer this year.
MAY 23RD
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Studio: Paramount
Directed by: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Harrison Ford, Cate Blanchett, Shia LaBeouf, Ray Winstone
The plot: The return of everyone's favorite adventuring archaeologist.
Harris: For years I thought this would never happen, and it was a stupid idea. It feels like this should've been made 10 years ago. Harrison Ford really looks too old to be doing this, but the first teaser trailer was great, and I am excited to a degree. I just hope it turns out well. I hope Sallah does make an appearance along with Marion Ravenwood who we already knows is in it. This will be the first Indy movie that will involve what looks to be extraterrestrial and alien elements.
Lealos: This will be the biggest movie of the summer, no question. It will also rule the summer box office, I am sure of that. The biggest box office take of the series was the third, which hit just under $500 million worldwide. I think with so much time for anticipation, and the fact that it has become one of the most loved franchises of all time, it will possibly double that number by the time it is done. I see over $300 million domestically and another $500 million worldwide. This will be the biggest film of the year and only bad word-of-mouth could hurt it. Look at the $900 million that The Phantom Menace made to see what rabid fandom can do for a movie. Personally, I cannot wait for this movie, and May is stacking up to be a great month to be an action film fan.
Furious: While this is probably too late in Harrison Ford's career, and if they'd done it even 6 years ago they could have got Connery to be in it, I'm still sold. I know a lot of folks don't like Beef County but he's been quite decent in a lot of films and he does seem to be trying to earn his spot in Hollywood. I don't see him "ruining" Indy like a lot of people think he will. Give the kid a break!
McGee: There's always a bit of trepidation when an old favorite returns, and this is no different. Has it been too long? Is Harrison Ford too old? Will Lucas pull a "prequels" and muck it all up? My faith in George may have waned, but I'm still shamelessly devoted to Steven Spielberg, and I trust in him to deliver the goods. Plus, the teaser trailer could not have been more perfect in putting all those fears to rest. I don't see this starting up a new series - this will likely be Indy's swan song - but I predict total fan service. This is Indiana Jones, and it will be awesome.
Thomas: Too late? No, not a chance. Lucas and Spielberg have been smart to play Indy as old as Harrison Ford really is, and to keep the pulp feel of it. Nothing about this film as anything remotely like bad press associated with it. Shia LaBeouf will not ruin it, Ray Winstone's character will likely be a perfectly good replacement for Marcus, and as much as I would have loved to see Connery, I'm glad they didn't. Final Judgment: ALMOST the must-see movie of the summer.
Kristopowitz: It's been way too long since we've seen Dr. Jones gallivanting around on the big screen, and while Harrison Ford is much older now (it has been, what, almost twenty years?), he's always welcome to don the fedora, the leather jacket, and the bullwhip and kick butt. I just hope it's as good as the previous three movies. And I hope that Shia LeBeouf, who has been rumored to be sort of "taking over" the franchise from Ford, doesn't cock it up. I don't think he will, but there's always that chance.
Snyder: I still have very mixed feelings about this one. The brief trailer definitely alleviated some of my worries, but I'm still not sure if this film was called for. Last Crusade was a pretty good finale to the series, and I'd hate to find out that they've screwed it up by adding on a sub-par (or even just average) film. Plus, the casting of Shia Lebeouf screams of a somewhat desperate attempt to get a younger audience interested in the film (which I don't even think was necessary – I think teens and kids probably have more knowledge of the franchise than Spielberg and Lucas probably give them credit for). Still, I'll admit to being excited about Marian's return to the series, and I definitely won't be surprised if this ends up being the biggest movie of the year.
Cusson: Just thinking about this movie gets that theme song stuck in my head. After twenty years, Harrison Ford is back to play Indiana Jones. I'm trying to walk into this film with an open mind and no expectations. I really want this film to be good. I'm such a huge fan of the original three that I don't want to see its legacy get ruined by a couple crappy films. George Lucas has already proven his ability to ruin a franchise. But with Spielberg and Harrison Ford involved, I'm fairly confident we'll see a good movie here. And it's not like we're dealing with Shakespeare here. It's just the story of an adventuring archaeologist.
Chamberlain: *deep breath* Star Wars still rules, the prequels were great, George Lucas is still the man, Harrison ain't too old, this movie will kick ass, Yankees suck, Jets suck, Knicks suck. Come and get me flamers!
Brimfield: Although I haven't felt the hyperbole machine truly running into overdrive for the new Indy flick, I don't think there can be any doubt that this will be a monster hit, as it has pretty much every demographic covered. This is sure to be essential cinema.
MAY 30TH
Sex and the City: The Movie
Studio: New Line Cinema
Directed by: Michael Patrick King
Starring: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis
The plot: Set four years after we last saw the ladies, Carrie (Parker), Samantha (Cattrall), Miranda (Nixon), and Charlotte (Davis) negotiate their friendships, romances, and careers in New York City. At the center of it all is Carrie's pending nuptials to Mr. Big.
Harris: I've always hated Sex and the City, and I don't plan on to start liking it right now. The show's very popular and the movie has buzz, it could do comparable business to The Simpsons Movie, but not quite as high. We'll see.
Lealos: I spoke of counter programming earlier with Made of Honor. Here is another case of that, as this television retread will try to suck in the women who are tired of action flicks (Indy) and kid's flicks (Narnia). Enough time should have passed to let it be the next big thing for women to flock to, but I personally hated the show, felt the women were self indulgent and wish the movie had never been made. Millions of fans might prove me wrong, but I would not let my wife drag me to this regardless of what was promised me in return. I hope this movie dies a painful death.
Furious: Never saw the appeal. Although Kim Cattrall used to be a stone-cold fox back in the 1980's. I had an enormous crush on her growing up. One for fans of the show only, I feel.
McGee: I never watched the show, so I am obviously not the intended audience for this one. Given the fan base, it will probably be huge. More power to it, I guess.
Thomas: Allow me to lose any male credibility that I may have to say that I'm a Sex in the City viewer. Hey, I'm married, and my best friends are twenty-something women, what can I say? I don't think this will be the worst thing ever, though I do think that the idea of making this into a movie was not the best one. Now, consider that it's not just this movie… ladies and gentlemen, this has been planned as a trilogy. That's right, folks… a damn trilogy. So all the people who hate the idea of this movie better pray to whatever graven idols you hold dear that it bombs, or we got two more on the way.
Kristopowitz: Oh, for the love of Drake this looks awful. Does the world really need this movie? Haven't we all had enough of Carrie, Samantha, Miranda, and Charlotte? I know I have. And the fact that I freaking know their names without having to look them up proves my point. Hopefully this movie is the first in a series of one and that'll be it.
Snyder: There was a recent rumor that one of the show's main characters will die in this film. If the entire running length of the movie was all four characters dying long, excruciating deaths, then maybe - maybe - I would consider checking this one out. Otherwise, no thanks.
Cusson: One of the things I'm proud of the creators of Six Feet Under for is their ability to end the show and move on. Sadly, the ladies of Sex and the City can't. Since these ladies really aren't good enough to act on their own, it's time to go back to the well one more time for a big payoff. I guess if women want to feel empowered by these ladies having sex with various men to feel powerful, that's their prerogative. I couldn't stand this show when it was on television and you can bet I'll be ignoring this like the plague in theaters.
Chamberlain: No force, on Earth or heaven, could make me see this movie. And no, I don't have a girlfriend.
Brimfield: *sob*
The Strangers
Studio: Rogue Pictures
Directed by: Bryan Bertino
Starring: Scott Speedman, Liv Tyler, Gemma Ward
The plot: A couple (Speedman and Tyler) cozied up in a vacation home are terrorized by three unknown assailants.
Harris: Eh, looks like an unimpressive ghost/horror/haunted house movie with a lot of cheap jumps and scares. Most modern horror movies don't really interest me. A lot of the imagery though in the trailer reminded me of the Spanish horror film, The Orphanage.
Lealos: I remember hearing about this movie a few months back and then seeing a trailer that looked promising. It is the only straight horror movie for the month of May and that might help it, but the lead characters of Scott Speedman (Underworld) and Liv Tyler makes it less appealing. Plus, there was a DVD released last month of a superior film called Ils (aka: Them) that follows the same storyline. The big deal lately is the success of tamed PG-13 horror movies geared towards kids of all ages. I hate the neutering of the once great genre, but they are succeeding (Prom Night was successful for God's sake!). With The Strangers being rated R, I see it failing to reach the crowds of the kid family scare fare it is competing with. It should still make its budget back but will be an overall failure to close out the month.
Furious: Seems every month one of these films comes out. As long as there's an audience for this sort of horror studios will keep making them. The trailer is nice and jumpy though. And I'd much rather watch this than Sex and the City. Seemingly based on actual events this is probably a loose version of the Manson Family killings. Quite how all this will drag out to 90 minutes I don't know. It sounds like a good idea for an hour long TV movie though.
McGee: Looks mildly interesting, but that may be my stalker-ish love for Liv Tyler talking. Just another generic horror flick.
Thomas: First off, this movie has nothing to do with haunted houses or ghosts, though I can understand the association, with the bag on the head thing being reminiscent of The Orphanage. It's more of a "three crazy people torment a random couple" film. Second, let's ignore the "Inspired by True Events" tagline the movie is trying to bill, because that's as much bullshit as Hostel was "Based on a True Story." Now, with that out of the way… I have never seen Liv Tyler do a really good job in a movie. Not once. Not in Armageddon, not in Lord of the Rings, not in Jersey Girl, Reign Over Me…the list goes on. Scott Speedman is currently on my shit list thanks to Anamorph. The trailer looks fairly good, but with horror/thriller films, that can mean very little. Add in yet another director who's on his first outing - which seems to be a growing trend - and I'm very, very skeptical.
Kristopowitz: I liked the trailer for this flick, but for some reason I get the feeling the movie itself is going to suck. No one seems to be able to make a decent thriller anymore. Vacancy was pretty good, though. If The Strangers is at least half as good as that flick I'll be satisfied.
Snyder: This sounds pretty similar to Them, a recent French horror film that was very acclaimed. It also kinda sounds like Funny Games. Heck, now that I think about it, it sounds like quite a few horror films, doesn't it? Still, that doesn't always mean it will be bad, and it seems like every year there's at least one under-the-radar, simple fright flick that ends up being better than expected (Vacancy, anyone?). Maybe this will be that film for this year…but I'm not holding my breath. It's more likely that this will bet yet another horror flick that doesn't live up to the coolness of its trailer.
Cusson: What an interesting concept. I don't know how this film will turn out considering Speedman and Tyler are involved, but it's an interesting diversion from the other big film coming out this weekend.
Chamberlain: I saw the trailer for this before Harold and Kumar and, for most of it, couldn't tell if they were actually being serious about it. The theatre was packed, and at the part where Liv Tyler is standing around and the ‘freaky' guy moseys around the corner really slowly, there wasn't a single person in the place that wasn't laughing their ass off. It looked straight out of Scary Movie. But apparently this is really a horror flick. Good luck with that!
Brimfield: This particular thriller/horror movie plotline seems to have been run completely dry in recent years, and I doubt this will do anything to invigorate the conceit. Plus, having a supermodel playing a bad guy is dangerous casting. But then, on the other hand, you have the lovely Liv Tyler, who should be able to make this at least watchable.
The votes are in... Indiana Jones is the 411 staff's hit of the month, while What Happens in Vegas is our shit of the month!
That's all for now, folks. Stay tuned next month for a look at Ed Norton's The Incredible Hulk, Pixar's WALL-E and a whole lot more!
