411 Movies Roundtable: October 2008 Part 2

Posted by Owain J. Brimfield on 10.02.2008

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

REMEMBER TO CHECK OUT PART 1!

Coming Attractions

OCTOBER 3RD

Beverly Hills Chihuahua
Studio: Walt Disney
Directed by: Raja Gosnell
Starring: Drew Barrymore, George Lopez, Salma Hayek
The plot: While on vacation in Mexico, Chloe (Barrymore), a pampered Beverly Hills chihuahua, finds herself lost and in need of assistance in order to get back home. Coming to Chloe's aid is a macho Chihuahua named Papi (Lopez), and a spirit guide (Hayek) who endeavors to help Chloe discover her true heritage.

Furious: I don't care for Disney at the best of times but this film can take a step back and literally fuck itself in the face.

Lealos: Well, I should feign interest due to the simple fact that my wife and I just bought a baby chihuahua, but this movie looks really stupid. I don't see much interest for it and I think it will be in and out of theaters quick.

Kristopowitz: Does this movie look stupid? Absolutely. Does it look funny? Kind of (sue me, I'm a sucker for talking animal movies). Will I see it? Probably. It looks just stupid and bizarre and corny enough to work. And I like the ad campaign for it. It's ridiculous. My local theatre has a giant banner for the movie that takes up an entire wall. Again, it's ridiculous.

Tym: Unfortunately, I saw the trailers for this one. That's the only negative comment I'll make. I'm sure that these types of films have some kind of merit when it comes to pleasing the kiddies, but I'm hoping that parents keep their children away from drivel like this. Really, didn't the Taco Bell commercials say all that really needed to be said about the Chihuahua?

Chamberlain: Things that would be more fun than watching this movie include, but are not limited to; a rectal exam with rusty implements... a marathon of "Coach", "Murphy Brown" and "Nanny" episodes... and watching an entire season of Toronto Maple Leaf hockey (Hey-oooo!).

Thomas: I guess Disney's trying to give Friedman and Seltzer a run for "Worst Movie of the Year." I don't think it'll top Disaster Movie there, but seriously, does anyone ACTUALLY want to see this piece of crap? Is the beautiful and talented Salma Hayek so hard up for roles she had to take a spot in this? I'd rather suffer a few hours of Montezuma's revenge then sit through this. Blow me, Disney.

Snyder: I actually like Chihuahuas, but that like does not translate to a desire to see a lame, talking animals kiddy film. If I want to see stupid, racist Mexican stereotypes, I'll watch Mind of Mencia. Actually, wait… no, I won't. But I won't watch this either.

Brimfield: It takes a special "it" factor to pull off a family movie involving talking animals. The upcoming Bolt looks like it may have it. This most certainly does not.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
Studio: Sony
Directed by: Peter Sollett
Starring: Michael Cera, Kat Dennings, Aaron Yoo
The plot: Nick (Cera) asks Norah (Dennings) to pretend to be his girlfriend for 5 minutes so he won't have to feel as awkward around his ex-girlfriend, who just walked into the club where Nick's band is playing ... with a new guy. But when the fake couple decides to kiss, sparks occur, leading to a first date which seems to span all of New York City.

Furious: Very minimalist concept. Michael Cera seems to be doing well for himself. I certainly thought he did a great job on Juno. Kind of a Before Sunrise for teens; the early reviews have been mostly positive.

Lealos: I like Michael Cera, and thought he was great in Juno. However, this movie's trailer reminds me a bit too much of an American Pie type movie, which might not be a bad thing, but isn't the direction I want to see his career going right now. It should be great fun for the kids, though I am not really excited about it at all.

Kristopowitz: On one hand, this movie doesn't appeal to me at all (a bunch of hip and edgy young people riding around, making hip and edgy remarks about pop culture and relationships). I don't like the theatrical preview for it, either. But, I have a sneaky feeling that it's going to be much better than the previews suggest. And I don't know if I like the title, either. It sounds too cute.

Tym: This looks like it could be a decent flick. I enjoy Michael Cera and think the premise could be enjoyable as long as it's not stretched out for too long. Of course, if the plot doesn't overstay its welcome it could still be too cutesy for its own good. But I like quirky and feel-good movies, so I'm going to be pulling for its success. However, I wish that cities other than New York could be picked for the backdrop of such stories. How about giving Seattle or some other metro area a little love?

Chamberlain: Maybe I'm wrong on this one, but Michael Cera seems to be a polarizing individual. I know people who love him and people who hate Superbad (a cardinal sin as far as I'm concerned) because of him. Personally I think he's pretty funny in that deadpan, unintentional sort of way, and this movie looks like it could be just weird enough to work. There looks to be a number of funny cameos, an intriguing plot and a pretty cute female lead (and I love the title's Thin Man reference) so I think I'll give this one a shot.

Thomas: I really think this one has a lot of potential. Michael Cera's surprising me by becoming a bigger name then I ever thought he would, and the rest of the cast looks good. I think it'll be a fun little movie that, while it won't be the best thing ever, should be enjoyable from start to finish.

Snyder: I like Cera (sure, he's only got one character, but I still enjoy his shtick), and Dennings is cute as hell. Still, having said that, I'm not entirely sold on this one. I'm not rushing out to see it, but it does look like it could be a fairly entertaining comedy. If it does work, it will be because of the cast, and not the tired storyline.

Brimfield: I think Arnold hit it on the head with the Before Sunrise comparison. If this is even half as lovely as said Linklater film, it'll be a treat, and Michael Cera deserves the increased exposure this will undoubtedly bring his way.

How to Lose Friends and Alienate People
Studio: MGM
Directed by: Robert B. Weide
Starring: Simon Pegg, Kirsten Dunst, Danny Huston
The plot: British journalist Sidney Young (Pegg) crosses the pond for a new job with a high-profile New York magazine, though he soon learns the bridges he burned on his way to the top can only lead to his downfall.

Furious: This would be the first attempt to push Simon Pegg as a legitimate star in the US. I certainly think he has the talent to do so but my concern is that directors aren't sure how to use Pegg as a talent. Whereas Pegg himself, along with the Spaced crew (Edgar Wright et al), seem to do their best work when they're creatively in charge. However the trailer does look quite funny as Pegg's at his offensive best.

Lealos: I really want to like this movie. The trailers don't look all that inspiring but, thanks mostly to Simon Pegg, I want it to be good. Based on the true story of a real horse's ass, Pegg really has a lot to carry here to make his character even remotely likeable. I think he can do it but that supporting cast is scary. Kirsten Dunst seems to be getting worse as she progresses in her acting career and Megan Fox has not proven to be anything more than eye candy. It does have Gillian Anderson and Jeff Bridges, so that is good. What I want is the next Edgar Wright/Simon Pegg/Nick Frost team-up, but according to IMDB, there is not one presently in development, and that makes me sad.

Kristopowitz: Well, the great Simon Pegg's last "American" movie didn't fare all that well, but he's a funny actor and, with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz and now Spaced gaining a larger audience by the day, I'm hoping it does better than Run, Fatboy, Run. Simon Pegg should be a bigger star here in the United States than he is. Nick Frost, too, but he's not in this movie, so... Isn't Jeff Bridges in this, too?

Tym: Sounds like a decent premise and I'm sure that Simon Pegg will delight as always. Sincerely, from Shaun to his bit piece in MI:III it seems he can do no wrong, and he looks to be headed to bigger and better things with Abrams' Star Trek reboot. Here's hoping he can gel well enough with the script and cast to keep the goodwill flowing. A recent viewing of the trailer leads me to believe that Pegg and company can deliver.

Chamberlain: Megan Fox is in this. I'd watch Megan Fox in pretty much anything (films or clothing).

Thomas: Advance buzz on this wasn't particularly good if I recall. Simon Pegg looks fairly amusing, and the story is the kind that generally appeals to me, but I just can't get too excited about this one. I don't know if it's the presence of Dunst or just the general lack of enthusiasm the trailer inspires, but I don't imagine I'll be checking this one out until DVD unless the reviews are incredible.

Snyder: Why does the dreaded Kirsten Dunst have to be in this? She's really throwing off the awesomeness of the cast. Like I said for Nick and Norah's, this is one that will depend entirely on the charms of its cast. I'd like to think Pegg and Megan Fox can pull it off, but the trailers aren't really doing anything for me.

Brimfield: Despite a great-looking cast, I'm having hard time trying to scrape together any interest in this one. The book was duff, and even a tandem as talented as Pegg and Jeff Bridges are unlikely to shoehorn some charm into this project. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

Flash of Genius
Studio: Universal
Directed by: Marc Abraham
Starring: Greg Kinnear, Lauren Graham, Alan Alda
The plot: Once Robert Kearns (Kinnear) discovers that new cars are coming equipped with intermittent windshield wipers - a technology Kearns invented, patented, and unsuccessfully tried to sell - he launches a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. automotive industry.

Furious: I'm struggling to even say something about this one. It has Alan Alda in it? That's a good thing. It'd better be good because it sounds very bland. Early reviews are strong so you never know. Supposedly "inspirational". We'll see.

Lealos: This actually looks pretty good, almost like a lighter version of The Insider. Robert Kearns created the intermittent windshield wipers in 1967, only to have Ford and Chrysler steal his invention and use it in 1969. He would sue both companies in 1978 and fight them for seventeen years in court battles for what he was due. Greg Kinnear plays Kearns and the trailers actually have me interested. This might be my sleeper for October.

Kristopowitz: I just saw a preview for this movie, and it looks both uplifting and frustrating. As much as I want to see movies take on evil corporate scumbags and corporate thieves, etc, this flick just looks like it's hitting the nail on the head too much. So Ford stole this guy's windshield wiper design. Why should I care? And for some odd reason Alan Alda's presence disturbs me.

Tym: I like Kinnear, and Alda is good in anything he does. I don't know if the story itself will provide enough drama to make a lot of waves at the box office, though. But if done correctly it could be a great take on the little guy versus corporate America tale so many of us can relate to on any level.

Chamberlain: A lawsuit against the auto industry? There's a good way to get yourself killed.

Thomas: I imagine that this will be a great movie that will do pretty well on DVD, but won't make much more than a blip on the radar in the theaters. Greg Kinnear is an underrated actor, and this feels like something that could be quite nicely done. The timing couldn't be better, being a movie about a man fighting for what's his that's coming out at a time when we're in a financial crisis instigated by big business, so that might help it. We'll see.

Snyder: I actually haven't heard a whole lot about this one, but Kinnear is pretty darn reliable, and Alan Alda is no slouch, either. The premise sounds like it has potential to be decent, but I don't see this making much of a dent at the box office.

Brimfield: Really not my cup of tea. I don't know why I use that expression, as I don't actually like tea at all. Will probably be decent, for those who do enjoy their hot milky beverages.

OCTOBER 10TH

Body of Lies
Studio: Warner Bros.
Directed by: Ridley Scott
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, Mark Strong
The plot: In Jordan, an ex-journalist (DiCaprio) working to locate an Al Qaeda leader for the CIA faces pressure from an agent (Crowe) for whom failure is not an option.

Furious: Ridley Scott has always been one of my favourite directors. His films however do tend to drastically vary in quality. For every Alien or American Gangster or Blade Runner you get a Hannibal or a Kingdom of Heaven or 1492. I know every director has inconsistency to a degree because of the studio system but Ridley can be quite frustrating. He does seem to enjoy working with Russell Crowe though and with Gladiator got his best performance. These terrorist related films seem to be cropping up increasingly often though and you wonder if the market for them will continue.

Lealos: I have never been one for military thrillers, but this looks pretty good, and it should. It is directed by Ridley Scott, and features his favorite actor Russell Crowe. This is the third movie in a row that Crowe starred for Scott, following American Gangster and A Good Year. Add in Leo DiCaprio and the movie is loaded with enough talent to sell itself. Its October release makes me wary, as this time of the year is a graveyard for movies that don't work, but I will give it the benefit of the doubt.

Kristopowitz: I've said this before, and I'll say it again: no matter what kind of facial hair and or muscle Leonardo DiCaprio puts on his body for a role, he still, to this day, looks like he's fifteen. And Russell Crowe looks like he's playing Jeff Wigand as a bizarre black ops director here. But, even with all of that stuff, this looks pretty decent. I'm intrigued to see how well DiCaprio and Crowe work together. Will Crowe's obvious "manly" charisma overwhelm him?

Tym: I'm looking forward to this movie quite a bit. I've always been a fan of Ridley Scott, and think Russell Crowe performs exceptionally well in movies that focus more on his dramatic abilities than his action prowess, although the argument could be made that most of his roles are great since they usually combine both. I've never been a Leo-hater, either - well maybe a little bit for Titanic... As long as story is not compromised by overwrought political commentary this should be one of the best films coming out this month.

Chamberlain: DiCaprio plays a former journalist? I'm down with that. The previews look kinda cool, and Russell Crowe looks like a first class jackass.

Thomas: I really like the set-up for this, and it seems like the kind of thing that's going to be the first big film of the fall season. Crowe and DiCaprio kick ass in roles like this; if you don't believe me on Leonardo, then you haven't seen the amazing Blood Diamond. This is also the exact kind of film that's up Scott's alley. I expect this to be a return to form for all of the above, and I can't wait to see it.

Snyder: Thank heavens for that description, since this had one of the most confusing marketing campaigns I had ever seen. Seriously, not one of the various trailers or TV spots I saw made it clear just what was going on in this thing. Then again, perhaps the studio knew it didn't matter, since they're probably betting on people seeing it just because it's Crowe, DiCaprio, and Scott. That's certainly the case with me.

Brimfield: Any sci-fi nut like me still worships at the altar of Ridley Scott, but I haven't been a fan of many of his ventures outside of that genre. Still DiCaprio, has finally shaken off his Titanic persona and the Scott/Crowe partnership has yielded more hits than misses, so I'll give this a chance.

RocknRolla
Studio: Warner Bros.
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Gerard Butler, Tom Wilkinson, Idris Elba, Thandie Newton
The plot: In London, a real-estate scam puts millions of pounds up for grabs, naturally attraction the attention of some of the city's scrappiest tough guys (Butler, Elba) its more established underworld players (Wilkinson), and others -- all of whom are looking to get rich quick.

Furious: You can't move in the UK without being reminded that Guy Ritchie is back. Yeah, he had a couple of duds lately but this is supposed to be a return to form. Reviews have been glowingly positive and the trailer looks strong. Hey, it's got to be better than that movie he did with Madonna!

Lealos: I have to say I never saw Revolver, so I don't know if it is as bad as everyone makes it out, but Guy Ritchie needs a hit. What has the guy done since Snatch, other than bang Madonna? If this movie fails, Ritchie could well kiss his career goodbye (unless Robert Downey Jr. saves his ass with the upcoming Sherlock Holmes movie).

Kristopowitz: I'm not a fan of Guy Ritchie, and I've never been all that interested in his movies, and this one is no exception. It sounds like another movie chock full of scumbags, and I just can't get into that.

Tym: I'm not a fan or disdainer of Guy Ritchie. I could take or leave him, and the same goes for fare like Lock, Stock… and Snatch. This film looks like fun and has a decent cast. I'm sure Ritchie fans are happy as this seems to be a return to form of sorts for him. I'm sure everyone looking forward to this will enjoy it.

Chamberlain: I'm not feeling it.

Thomas: Yes, Ritchie's certainly had some dogs as of late, but you have to look at those films and the casts in them. I actually quite like his work, and I think with a strong cast here as well as an interesting story, this could put him back on the map. The trailer looks good, the advance buzz is great. We'll see if it lives up to the hype.

Snyder: The advance buzz on this one is that it's Ritchie's return to form. We'll have to wait and see if that's true, but I'm certainly pulling for him. The trailer looks fun, but then again, so did the trailer for Revolver, and we all know how that turned out.

Brimfield: Like Shawn I haven't seen Revolver, but if Ritchie's latest effort can claw back some of the style and panache of his first two outings this should be a worthwhile watch, even if it does cement the director's reputation as one of the least versatile filmmakers currently working.

City of Ember
Studio: Fox Walden
Directed by: Gil Kenan
Starring: Saoirse Ronan, Harry Treadaway, Bill Murray, Tim Robbins
The plot: For generations, the underground City of Ember has been the only light in an otherwise dark world. But when the city's generator begins to fail, teenagers Lina (Ronan) and Doon (Treadaway) desperately race to help their fellow citizens escape before the lights go out permanently. To do so, they will have to search Ember high and low for clues that will unlock the ancient mystery of their city's origins.

Furious: I like sci-fi. The trailer seems to tease at a bigger storyline than the search for a Macguffin. I also like Bill Murray and Tim Robbins when they're used right. I'm hoping this isn't comical and goes full on with the sci-fi vibe. It could be a very cool film. It could also be a kids film but the marketing is quite shrewd in that respect. It sounds good, on paper.

Lealos: I want this movie to be good in the worst way. I have been looking forward to it for a long time and it gives off the feel of some of my favorites such as Dark City, Delicatessen and The Crow. However, it also has the kids' movie label bringing it down a bit. Bill Murray as the bad guy is fantastic, but it has to stay dark for me to give it a pass. If it is just another movie where the kids save the day, I will be very disappointed.

Kristopowitz: I haven't seen a preview for this, but Fox Walden has made some decent family fantasy movies in the past, and with Bill Murray and Tim Robbins involved, I'm sure it will be a blast on some level.

Tym: I'll admit to not knowing anything about the 2003 novel of the same name and even less about the film adaptation. It seems that a lot of great talent is associated with the project, though, from Tom Hanks who purchased the rights to the novel, to the great Bill Murray playing a role. I've just read the basic story and viewed the trailer and it seems like a great premise and maybe even a hidden gem for people like me who don't know much about it yet.

Chamberlain: Bill Murray! Yes! And the plot sounds pretty cool too. I think I'll be checking this one out.

Thomas: Yawn. I remember seeing the trailer for this when it first came out and being bored out of my mind. Kids' fantasy can be done well... look at The Spiderwick Chronicles. But I just don't see this one working out, even with Bill Murray and Tim Robbins involved.

Snyder: I'm not a big fan of young adult fiction, but I really enjoyed this book. The visual style they're going for with this one is not exactly how I would have pictured it, but they definitely made a good move with casting Bill Murray as the evil mayor. For whatever reason, this series of books has never quite enjoyed the fame of lesser works like Stephanie Meyer's Twilight, so I don't think this will be a huge hit, but I'm hoping it does well enough to justify filming the rest of the series.

Brimfield: The trailer and concept for this look great and Murray is always gold dust, but I have a nasty feeling this is going to be way more kid-friendly than its darker elements might have us believe. Fingers crossed.

OCTOBER 17TH

W.
Studio: Lionsgate
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Starring: Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioan Gruffudd
The plot: Texas Governor, George W. Bush, follows in the footsteps of his father, former President George H.W. Bush, in the wake of a controversial election to lead the United States of America.

Furious: This is a highly anticipated movie. Oliver Stone has a habit of chasing down the controversial making movies about Vietnam from both sides, World Trade Center, Natural Born Killers, JFK. He's the kind of guy you'd want digging around in the murky depths of George W. Bush's soul. Josh Brolin is brilliant casting and this could be one of the movies of the year. George W. is probably happy he's considered entertaining enough to base a movie on but with Stone at the helm it'll be interesting to see how he treats his subject matter. After all he was quite nice to Richard Nixon considering.

Lealos: Yeah, I know Oliver Stone is not really as relevant as he once was. But the guy gave us JFK, one of the greatest political movies ever made. Nixon wasn't great, but it wasn't horrible either. Oliver Stone knows how to make an interesting movie and tell a story. I really hope this movie matches up. Stone himself said he is not trying to make Bush look bad in this movie and is only painting a realistic picture of the soon to be former president, but the timing of its release tells me a different story. I am certain Stone is trying to make his views known here, but if he creates a good story along the way, I can live with it.

Kristopowitz: Director Oliver Stone keeps saying that the movie is not an attack on George W. Bush and, as far as I can tell, no one believes him. I do believe him. I think this is as "fair" a movie we're probably ever going to get about Bush, at least until some Christian wacko movie studio decides to do a movie about him where's he's Jesus or something (or Showtime decides to do a sequel to DC 9/11, that movie Brian Trenchard-Smith made back in 2003). But, because Stone is a raving leftist and Fidel Castro sympathizer, the flick probably won't get a fair shake and we'll all have to listen to at least a week of Sean Hannity and drug addict Rush Limbaugh yahooing about the liberal media hating America. I'm definitely interested in seeing it.

Tym: I can't wait to see that craziness Oliver Stone pulls out of his you-know-what for this one. I'm looking forward to seeing how honest or sensationalized this is going to be, and like all of the leads well enough to suspend my disbelief for a few hours. The only issue I really have with the film is rushing it out before election and the end of Bush's term; it reeks of sensationalism and marketing to me, but that's part of the business, right?

Chamberlain: Ioan, what the hell man? Quit screwing around and make Fantastic Four 3 already!

Thomas: I really have hopes for this one. Like Shawn said, JFK is one of the greatest political movies of all time, and I think a lot of people give Stone too much shit for his views, and then sell his movies short. Nixon was a good film, Any Given Sunday as well. Alexander had problems, but World Trade Center was good and amazingly non-political. Josh Brolin and Elizabeth Banks are inspired casting, not to mention James Cromwell as Bush Sr. and Richard Dreyfuss as Cheney. Even after all the dust settles around the controversy, this will ultimately never get a fair shake I don't think, and that's a shame, because it's got the potential to be fascinating.

Snyder: This looks ridiculous, but in a good way. Like everyone else, I don't expect Stone to offer a fair and balanced take on the tale, but since I'm no great Bush fan I'll freely admit I don't mind this being presented as a complete farce, which is kind of what it looks like. If nothing else, this should be fun.

Brimfield: This is one of the riskiest movies to achieve mainstream release in a fair while. It's going to be impossible to divorce the movie from the politics, but if it does have a chance to be seen on its own and judged on its own merits, it's shaping up to be a reasonable political drama. Unfortunately, it's bound to be shouted down by all and sundry.

Max Payne
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Directed by: John Moore
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Chris O'Donnell
The plot: Coming together to solve a series of murders in New York City are a DEA agent (Wahlberg) whose family was slain as part of a conspiracy and an assassin (Kunis) out to avenge her sister's death. The duo will be hunted by the police, the mob, and a ruthless corporation.

Furious: Another gutless effort from Fox. Say video games are popular. Let's adapt another one! The cast doesn't inspire and I really couldn't care less.

Lealos: This looks like a strange mixture between Sin City and The Crow. The trailer actually makes it look like the exact same story as The Crow, but replace the bird with a Valkyrie. I like Mark Wahlberg and I like big action flicks, so I might like this one. I just hope it's better than the last video game adaptation it reminds me of, Hitman.

Kristopowitz: I'm curious about how this action movie apparently blends the supernatural angel world with that of the "gritty realism" of Max Payne and the criminal underworld or whatever the heck the movie is about. The action scenes look hard edged and brutal, but the supernatural elements, at least as they are presented in the trailer, make the movie look kind of pretentious. And I don't know if I can believe in Jackie Burkhart herself, Mila Kunis (or Meg Griffin, whichever), as an assassin. I had a hard time believing her as a serial killer in American Psycho 2, too, so there is that hurdle to overcome.

Tym: Mark Wahlberg usually makes a decent enough lead (except when directed by M. Night) and I'm curious to see just how much of the video game will be translated onto the big screen. It looks like fun, and I am keeping my fingers crossed that they keep the cooler supernatural elements intact as well.

Chamberlain: I never got into the Max Payne games. That said, it does look like it translates into a pretty cool action movie with the real Vinny Chase himself. Might be worth a shot!

Thomas: This was almost my most anticipated movie of the month, just for being a video game movie that might not suck. Max Payne is a great story, and the cast is quite good. The trailer kicks all sorts of ass, and if they get this one right, it'll go down in the annals of history as the first video game film not to blow. I'm really hopeful.

Snyder: A lot of people will be betting against this, just because it's a video-game based movie. On the other hand, it seems like the trailer has a lot of folks excited, and wondering if this could finally be the first truly high-class video-game film. I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but it does look like it could be a pretty damn cool action flick. The question will be if there's any substance to go with the style the trailer is clearly oozing.

Brimfield: I don't think I've ever played the game, so I don't really have any clue about this. Wahlberg was entertaining in Shooter, though, so perhaps this might work. Actually, no, let's face it, there's more chance of a Wii re-release of GoldenEye 007 before a decent video game movie ever happens.

What Just Happened?
Studio: Magnolia
Directed by: Barry Levinson
Starring: Robert De Niro, John Turturro, Stanley Tucci, Bruce Willis
The plot: A comedy that chronicles two weeks in the life of a fading Hollywood producer (De Niro) who's having a rough time trying to get his new picture made.

Furious: Barry Levinson has somewhat lost his way. Man of the Year was perhaps the most obvious example of this. A satire that totally lost all steam in the final third with a far less interesting angle. You get the feeling this is another film that'll do the same thing. Start with promise and fade away. Still the cast is really strong and Hollywood tends to make decent movies about making movies because it's something they all know about. Write what you know!

Lealos: I had never heard about this movie up to now. After watching the trailer, I really want to see it. Bruce Willis playing an overblown version of himself (fat with a "beard like Grizzly Adams") sells me on the movie all by itself. I complain about De Niro in comedies, but this is different because the comedy is not stupid family comedy but satire about Hollywood. Plus, it has Catherine Keener and John Turturro. This is how you make a trailer, because with no other marketing, it has moved to the top of my must see list.

Kristopowitz: While Barry Levinson is a gifted comedy director, I just can't find a reason to care about this movie. I haven't seen a preview for it, but it sounds like it's chock full of smarm, and does the world really need another movie full of that?

Tym: I really wish I could continue to have faith in the comedic stylings of De Niro and Willis. However, I simply cannot. Barry Levinson has done both good and bad with regards to cinema, but I don't know how much goodwill it will take to make this a comedy worth seeing in the theater. I'll keep my fingers crossed.

Chamberlain: De Niro is money, but I don't know if this will be a priority for me. I prefer my Hollywood satires with Jeremy Piven.

Thomas: De Niro's last pic disappointed (see Kill, Righteous), but this looks really funny. The cast is all sorts of awesome, and the trailer is amazing. Bruce Willis playing himself is a stroke of genius. I love films that poke fun at Hollywood, and this looks like a top-notch one.

Snyder: The time of having faith in De Niro is over. I hate to write off a film with such a great cast, but…well, I guess that's what I'm doing.

Brimfield: I'm sold on this on the cast alone. Willis and Turturro are among my favourite actors, and the possibility of seeing an intelligent and funny Hollywood comedy is always worth checking out a project like this.

OCTOBER 24TH

Saw V
Studio: Lionsgate
Directed by: David Hackl
Starring: Scott Patterson, Costas Mandylor, Tobin Bell
The plot: Forensics expert Hoffman (Mandylor) goes on the hunt in order to prevent being identified as the newest person to carry on Jigsaw's legacy.

Furious: I liked the time trick during Saw III and IV. I certainly think that made Saw IV a better picture as the majority of it was weak compared to the previous efforts. The whole ‘carrying on Jigsaw's legacy' doesn't sit too well with me and how long will it be before the series attempts to re-animate its central character? It feels like a desperate, and typical, attempt of a horror franchise to grab some more cash based on the name value of the series. For me anyway the series became significantly less interesting at the point where Jigsaw died.

Lealos: I saw the first one. I liked it. I never watched another one after that. I don't see that changing here.

Kristopowitz: This is easily the biggest movie of the month, just as it has been the last four years. And with good reason. Even if you hate "torture porn" movies, you really have to hand it to the moviemakers involved here, because they just keep churning these babies out, each time more unreliable and more bizarre than the last time. Jigsaw is freaking dead. How the hell are they going to keep this thing going? I can't wait to find out.

Tym: Even though I am not a fan of "torture porn," I have enjoyed every entry into the Saw series thus far. I'm tempted to blame it on Jigsaw, since I am convinced that part of his overall "game" is rooking moviegoers like me into buying more tickets. But I think the series fascinates me mostly because all of the films try to tie everything into some overcomplicated and completely ridiculous overlying plot that I thought made sense until I forgot most of it roughly five minutes after walking out of the theater after Saw IV. It's just exhausting, kinda like that least sentence. Still, I'll be going. The people at Lionsgate are geniuses if for nothing else than releasing these things at Halloween every year, where there is a built-in audience just waiting for some new horror.

Chamberlain: I can't believe these movies keep getting made.

Thomas: Okay, Saw IV had some problems, but it also had a lot of good moments and provided some great stuff. I still don't like Hoffman being the new Jigsaw, but Mandylor is an underrated actor who could carry it off. Let's face it, a lot of people are going to hate it, and it's probably not going to be as good as the first three--it might not even be as good as IV. But it's Saw, and it's going to have all the elements most audience members who go to it are looking for. I hope for a great plot, but I'm not expecting it. Either way, I'll be there.

Snyder: I know the official film snob attitude on this one is to act like the whole series is crap, and we should complain about Lionsgate churning them out every year. I've even seen a lot of hardcore horror fans take that stance. Well, I'm a huge horror fan, and if you ask me, this series has been nothing but good news for the genre. Every year it's a nice reminder that there's still an audience for hard-R scares, keeping things from sliding all the way over the PG-13 side. Plus, these films are a lot more creative than the slashers that crowded the multiplexes in the ‘80s and ‘90s. Regular readers of my stuff know I was no big fan of Saw III, but Saw IV's clever time trick won me back, and I'm looking forward to this one.

Brimfield: Will... not... die...

Pride and Glory
Studio: New Line
Directed by: Gavin O'Connor
Starring: Edward Norton, Colin Farrell, Noah Emmerich
The plot: A family of prominent New York City cops is shaken to its core when one brother (Norton) uncovers a scandal at his sibling's precinct.

Furious: Been a while since Ed Norton took on a role that gave him a lot to do emotionally. Pride and Glory could be the movie that re-lights his career as a lead actor. There have been a few cop dramas knocking around lately and there is a feeling that the material is a little clichéd. And yet if the actors involved deliver the performances they can deliver this could be a sleeper hit. My only concern is beyond the lead four guys (those listed plus Jon Voight) there aren't too many names involved, which might mean the script wasn't great at casting time. The trailer has me won though because it's my kind of film.

Lealos: The trailers look good, but isn't this the same movie we saw last year in We Own the Night?

Kristopowitz: I don't think Colin Farrell has ever made a good movie, so I have low expectations here. Norton looks like he's really into the part, and Jon Voight looks amazingly sleazy here. But, again, I just have a hard time believing Farrell is going to pull out a good performance here. The guy is a black hole of awfulness.

Tym: I will see anything Edward Norton does, and think that Colin Farrell can be quite good when he doesn't try too hard. The plot combined with the cast seems to have the ability to elevate above other similar efforts. But I've seen the term "saga" used to describe the film in some marketing materials, and reserve judgment on that until I see it myself.

Chamberlain: Ed Norton, what the hell man? Quit screwing around and make Hulk 2!

Thomas: This one's been on the back burner for some time, and was supposed to come out in March before being bumped way ahead to now. The buzz has been pretty bad, and director Gavin O'Connor has been in a tiff with New Line for a while over it. This basically gives it a Babylon A.D. vibe, and we know how bad that turned out. However, Ed Norton and Collin Farrell are better actors then Vin Diesel, so I'm hopeful. After all, if someone can bring a good "corrupt cop" performance out of Keanu Reeves, how bad can this be?

Snyder: Isn't it a little late to be jumping on the Departed / We Own the Night bandwagon?

Brimfield: I'm sorry but this is a complete "meh" from me. Seriously though Bryan, Minority Report? The War Zone?

OCTOBER 31ST

Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Studio: MGM
Directed by: Kevin Smith
Starring: Seth Rogen, Elizabeth Banks, Jason Mewes, Traci Lords
The plot: Lifelong platonic friends Zack (Rogen) and Miri (Banks) look to solve their respective cashflow problems by directing and starring in their own adult film.

Furious: I'm a big Kevin Smith fan. Saw Clerks not long after it came out on video, yeah video, and I was working as a clerk in an off licence. I've been a fan ever since. He doesn't always deliver but the more mature and judged nature of Clerks 2 combined with his patented humour made me think he'd grown up a little as a film maker. Having put the View Askewniverse behind him he's now expanding his horizons. The concept for this movie is great and the trailer has me totally hooked. Of all the movies coming out in October this is the one I'm most likely to see at the cinema.

Lealos: This is what I have been waiting for. I love Kevin Smith. There is nothing about Kevin Smith that I do not love. I like every movie he has made, even Jersey Girl. I think Jay and Silent Bob Strikes Back is hilarious and my wife and I can watch Clerks 2 all the time and still enjoy it. I really, really cannot wait for this movie. Seth Rogen makes me even more excited. Jeff Anderson returning in a non-Clerks movie is awesome. Justin Long as a gay porn star adds to the enthusiasm. Star Wars themed porn is the topping on the cake. This movie is going to make the end of October a very happy period for me.

Kristopowitz: I'm not a fan of Kevin Smith at all (I really got tired of seeing him in Wizard magazine. I haven't read a Wizard in a while, so I don't know if they still do it, but I haven't forgotten the Smith overkill), and while I have a feeling that Seth Rogen is about to achieve overexposure, this flick looks hysterical. That scene in the trailer where we see Rogen and Banks in the middle of making their porno is so freaking funny just in the trailer, I can't wait to see how it plays out in totality.

Tym: I think the premise is a bit ridiculous, as any self-aware individual hooked into the internet knows that there's plenty of free adult subject matter (read: porn) out there for the taking. However, I love Kevin Smith, Elizabeth Banks is a decent female lead (I've always liked her, especially on Scrubs, and Seth Rogen doesn't grate on my nerves as he seems to on everyone else's these days. Even if there isn't a subtitle reading "1985" to allay my fears on how realistic a movie about making an amateur porno can be, I'll grab some popcorn and a Coke because I'm sure that Smith can bring the lewdness and the crudeness along with the heart to provide some quality "adult" entertainment.

Chamberlain: At this point I think it's fair to say you're either a Kevin Smith fan or you're not. I am, and so I'm definitely looking forward to his latest flick. We'll see if he meets with greater success here than with his first departure from his Askewniverse.

Thomas: I'll watch anything Kevin Smith does. I may not always like it, but I love Smith's style, and this just looks like it'll be hilarious. It's got a lot of press, both for the trailer and NC-17 controversies and for the fact that Elizabeth Banks is playing Laura Bush and an amateur porn star in the same month, and I think that'll help it get some decent box office numbers. That and the fact that Seth Rogen is box office gold anymore.

Snyder: This looks great, and it could be Smith's first undisputed huge hit (thanks to Rogen's involvement, but I'm sure that's fine by Smith). If it somehow fails, I wouldn't be surprised to see Smith return to Jay and Silent Bob, but this looks like a pretty legitimate step towards finally leaving that phase behind for good.

Brimfield: Too much, too much Seth Rogen. The guy is funny and likeable and I wish him every success, but this is his NINTH appearance in a high-profile movie in the past 18 months. Do the maths, it's just too much. Mind you, at the risk of jumping on the Kevin Smith fanboy bandwagon, this does look pretty funny. Even if Star Whores isn't exactly an original idea. I'll probably wait for the DVD though, after the relative disappointment of Clerks 2.



The votes are in... Zack and Miri is the 411 staff's hit of the month, while Beverly Hills Chihuahua is our shit of the month!


That's all for now, folks. Stay tuned next month for a look at the epic Australia, the return of Bond, and a whole lot more!

All poster images courtesy of IMDB.