It’s that time of year again: time for the summer movie, the blockbuster, the movie all your friends are seeing and talking about. Sure, you’ll waste a bunch of money on duds such as Star Wars: Episode I (damn you, George Lucas, and your yes men!), but there’s always a shot you’ll see Inception — something surprisingly smart, tremendously entertaining, and beautifully done.
In the spirit of hope, then, let’s take a look at twelve of the biggest blockbusters coming up (and that have already come out) this summer.
X-Men: First Class
Loved it. Yes, I know that it portrays the Soviets and the Americans as two sides of the same coin, and shows America’s placement of Jupiter missiles in Turkey as a provocative cause of the Cuban missile crisis. Yes, I understand that the villain of the piece, Sebastian Shaw, utters lines such as “If you’re not with us, then by definition, you are against us.” Yes, I realize that American soldiers and the CIA are portrayed as sexist bullies intent on destroying anything that doesn’t fit their cookie-cutter worldview. I don’t care. The movie’s great. I haven’t seen a more entertaining and emotionally cathartic scene than the Argentinian bar scene in a long time. Perhaps it’s a Jewish thing, but all my sympathies lie with Magneto (as do the screenwriter’s, clearly), and I find Professor X to be an accommodationist willfully blind to reality (at least in this movie).
Mr. Popper’s Penguins
If you see this and you don’t have kids, I don’t even know why anyone would talk to you. If you see this and you do have kids, I’m wondering whether you need to give them a time out. Whenever you see previews for films like this, it makes you wonder whether a benevolent God actually exists.
Green Lantern
The CGI looks bad. The acting looks bad. The plot looks bad. The reviews look bad. Why is Ryan Reynolds a movie star?
Super 8
Have heard mixed reviews about this one. On the one hand, my good friend Kurt Schlichter ripped this movie up and down for its anti-military pretentions; on the other hand, it’s J.J. Abrams and Steven Spielberg, and Spielberg’s due for a good movie (isn’t he?). Also, it’s about aliens, which is Spielberg’s specialty. He’s not nearly as good with human beings — Saving Private Ryan is overrated, except for the D-Day sequence, and Schindler’s List is a gussying-up of the Holocaust. (You may send the hate mail now.)
Cars 2
As the Wall Street Journal reported, this new Pixar film is propaganda on behalf of “green energy” and Big Oil is once again the enemy. Director Jon Lasseter explained, “What would be a really good kind of uber bad guy? Who is an uber bad guy? I kept going to big oil.” Terrific. By the way, who thought that Cars needed a sequel while The Incredibles didn’t? I guess Pixar thought it was time for some more Wall-E liberalism (by the way, I liked Wall-E, but thought it was highly illogical that we’d find a way to shoot ourselves into space en masse but couldn’t find a way to shoot trash into space).
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II
The most boring series of all time comes to its conclusion, thank God. Haven’t read the books, I know, so that makes me worse than Stalin. But I have been dragged to these godawful movies year after year, and I cannot wait for them to come to a merciful end. And who knows? Maybe there will be a twist ending and something will actually happen.
Captain America
Jury’s out. Previews look interesting, but if this is another Big Bad Military Makes Monster movie, count me out.
The Smurfs
Why?
Cowboys and Aliens
I have to hand it to Jon Favreau — he’s doing what every famous movie director should do. He’s taking his fame and wealth and making movies that are plain fun. No idea whether this is going to suck or not — high chance that it will. But it’s pure popcorn stuff, and I know that Independence Day meets Tombstone will be interesting (and you can put money that that was precisely the pitch Favreau made in his studio meeting).
Friends with Benefits
Just what we need: another movie about friends who use each others’ genitals for pleasure. Hollywood claims when it makes these movies that it isn’t legitimizing this lifestyle but criticizing it for its lack of emotional weight — but every one of these movies starts off with the first hour showing how great the lifestyle is. If only we could keep those dang emotions out of the way, folks, we’d have the Brave New World we’ve all been waiting for!
Transformers: Dark of the Moon
When I first saw the preview for this, I thought, “Okay, cool, looks interesting.” Then the logo came up and I saw it was Transformers and I thought, “Nah.” Unfortunately, that’s the Michael Bay Effect. I’ve heard from industry insiders that Bay’s strategy with these movies is literally to walk into a room full of artists and say, “Make me something cool. Then I’ll write a movie around it.” That is not a good strategy.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
This violates every cardinal rule of moviemaking. Do Not Remake Great Films (didn’t they learn from Mark Wahlberg’s Planet of the Apes?). Do Not Use Monkeys As Main Characters. Do Not Use James Franco Under Any Circumstances, And Especially, Not As A Scientist. This is one of the worst previews in history. It looks absurd — are we all really supposed to be scared of a bunch of Mighty Joe Youngs? It undercuts the main premise of the original Planet of the Apes (SPOILER ALERT), which is that nuclear war caused the evolution that led man back to primitive state and led apes to man-like capacity. Now, apparently, it’s James Franco’s scientific abil — oh my God, I can’t stop laughing — abilities that turn our cousins into our overlords.
So there’s your summer preview. There’s gotta be something there for you to watch, right? If not, go rent Inception again. At least you know it’s good.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This piece has been amended since its original posting.
Ben, with all respect, if you're going to write about movies you ought to at least know that the Pixar movie you liked was "The Incredibles," not "The Invincibles."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFar be it from me to question your taste in entertainment, but with the exeption of X-Men, this piece seems to have been written by one of those film critics who pride themselves on being impossible to please.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe said 'Cowboys and Aliens' is a great premise. But as for the list, there is much to dislike if you like good movies.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs far as X-Men re-using 'Avatar's dialogue and still being good, I don't know.
"He’s taking his fame and wealth and making movies that are plain fun."
This is a great point. There are WAY too many movies today that just aren't very fun and aren't even entertaining.
"Why is Ryan Reynolds a movie star?"
There are some mysteries of life that just aren't meant to be solved. This, I'm sure, is one of them.
"Do Not Use James Franco Under Any Circumstances"
I would have agreed with this until I saw "127 Hours". Franco turns in a tour de force performance; No one was more surprised than I was.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for the reviews, Ben. My 2 cents:
Seeing that about Cars 2 made me sad; not because I liked the first one (by far Pixar's worst film), but because I'm such a fan of Jon Lasseter. I can't think of any film maker who has shown such consistent creativity and leadership in the last 20 years. I'm convinced that without him, there would be no Pixar or even a Disney animating studio anymore.
I'm sure you've heard it before, but I'll say it again. The Harry Potter books are amazing. Granted, the movies are trash, even though 1 or 2 show moments of great mediocrity, but the books are sublime. I predict that in 50 years they will be seen as classic fantasy literature on the same caliber as Tolkien, Lewis and Asimov.
Don't forget the cardinal rule Do Not Remake A Charlton Heston Film; no matter how good it is, it will dismally fail the inevitable comparison to the original. I guess that kinda falls under your first rule, but I just wanted to give CH a shoutout.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Invincibles? God heavens, man. Your talking about one of the greatest movies ever made. It's the Incredibles. Yeesh!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOn Cars 2, I seriously think that Lasseter was upset that Brad Bird ended up neutering the environmentalist message that he was going for in WALL-E (thanks to the inclusion of Otto, which can be seen as a lampooning of a technocratic "nanny" state), and wanted another bite at the apple. Cars was a pretty boilerplate left-populist "small towns good, progress and industry bad" story, and he figured a sequel would be just the vehicle (pun intended) to try to go preachy again.
Seriously, between The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and the second half of WALL-E, it's getting to the point where I can't really be bothered with Pixar unless Brad Bird is involved.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"progress and industry bad"
How did you get that out of Cars?
I saw it as a put down of self centeredness, as when Doc asked Lightning to name a single time in his life when he had done something for someone else.
Note, in the end Lightning did not quit the Piston Cup circuit, but instead used his fame to help his friends.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow did I get that? What was the reason Radiator Springs was more less a ghost town? The movie openly laments the fact that the freeway went around their town so that motorists weren't forced to drive through. It's the classic populist tale of "the future is leaving us behind!".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt could be taken that way, or it could be taken as a lament that people are in too much of a hurry to enjoy life. Remember how Sally started the monologue, she stated that people used to ride the mother rode just for the experience, now they bypass the town just to save 10 minutes.
She never said or implyed anything regarding regretting progress or new technical innovation.
There is nothing in the movie that implies the road bypassed Radiator Springs so that motorists wouldn't have to drive through it. Remember the map they showed during the monologue, the old Route 66 was a windy road while the new road was straight as an arrow and cut several miles off the old route.
It's quite clearly a lament that people are in too much of a hurry. It says absolutely nothing about either modernism or progess. You are reading something into the movie that absolutely is not there.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnfortunately when the TV showed the ad for the "Smurfs" movie my two kids jumped around in joy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you're selling "Saving Private Ryan" short.
The imagery and cinematography were captivating. I really want to emphasize this point. If you've been around a ear-splitting explosion, then the scenes of Hanks' character recovering from them are artistically accurate.
The characters were realistic and likeable. The audience had a chance to genuinely connect with the squad in a short time and their deaths inspired pity, sadness and fear.
The character that was impossible to like (Corporal Oppum)...well, I will admit I'm really not sure what role he was supposed to play in the movie. I don't see him as an Everyman. Was he supposed to be our window into the movie? Maybe, but as a veteran, I connected with the infantry more.
The plot was moving and didn't have "dead spots," in my mind. I can't recall a scene that left me thinking, "What's the purpose of the last five minutes?" Maybe the church scene could've hit the cutting room floor, but that scene was an attempt to humanize Hanks' character.
I dunno. I think the movie had strong characters, a good plot, and amazing artwork.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHad a stupid plot, bad dialogue and some really dumb situations. Other than that....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDenroy - Totally agree with you. The premise is just inane. Can't hold a candle to The Longest Day, Anzio, Under 10 Flags, The Battle of the Bulge, etc.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI hate that people think it's a good movie.
It's your typical Spielberg war movie - an anti-war war movie. Spielberg's plot device is that the mission of this unit is to actually ferry a man away from combat. In Spielberg's mind, that's the only "good" war movie; One that endeavors to get people out of a war.
Of all the stories of heroism that grew out of Allied Forces actually accomplishing the mission in various campaigns throughout the European theater, Spielberg instead chooses to create a fictional story. Why?
And, when Spielberg does dip his toe into historical "reality", like in Munich, he make sure to constantly drive home the point that the Israeli's really aren't much better than the people they're chasing.
This is Spielberg's MO, his calling card.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"In Spielberg's mind, that's the only "good" war movie..."
Sorry, but, how do you know what is in Mr. Spielberg's mind?
"...in Munich, he make sure to constantly drive home the point that the Israeli's really aren't much better than the people they're chasing."
No, he doesn't. He doesn't do that at all.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Saving Private Ryan" is actually much worse than Ben Shapiro indicates. As Mark Steyn and James Bowman confirmed in their reviews, it denigrates the motive of patriotism, which is completely unhistorical for the time that is portrayed. And the characters are much more like chatty '90's guys than 1940's guys. None of the characters were interesting or especially likeable to me. And I do know many World War II veterans who are interesting and very likeable. World War II American fighting men were not angels, but they also tended to be much more stoic than the fantasy-figures of Spielberg and the other limousine liberals who made SPR.
The post-landing-beach segments were extremely contrived. And splattering blood and flying body parts do not make a good war movie. And "Saving Private Ryan" is neither a good war movie, nor a good movie in general. Try "Battleground" if you want a much better tribute to our World War II soldiers.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe most accurate, ear-splitting explosion in a movie was in "The Pianist."
Count me as another who didn't think Saving Private Ryan was a good movie. Thought I was the only one.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseActually, after the first 30 minutes, I felt like I was watching every other World War II "buddy movie," where the platoon has the Texan, the Brooklyn Jew, the Italian American, the dedicated officer, the salty NCO, and the outcast who gets redeemed at the end.
At least "Kelly's Heroes" made fun of the concept and threw in a hippie.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot saying it was Oscar material, folks. My point is that it's not nearly as bad as some want it to be.
The characters were realistic and likeable. I didn't say, "historicly accurate." They connected with the modern audience. Realistic men and likeable. I let it be known that I thought the one character seemed completely pointless and yet he took up a good amount of time.
The artwork in the movie was amazing and there are subtleties through the movie that show the crew was interested in immersion (which I consider critical for movies).
The plot was not super-realistic, but I do go to movies to see stories that challenge. When I talk about the lack of "dead scenes," it's within the framework of the plot.
All this said, I'm not disagreeing that there were not areas to improve in the movie. He could have styled his characters in a more 1940s mold and worked harder to make that character relevent to a modern audience. He could have made the plot be about holding the bridge and, by chance, they meet the last surviving son of a family at the bridge. He could have made a more interesting vehicle than Corporal Oppum (who had that weird "capture five guys standing five feet away with a bolt-action rifle scene) to take us through the lives of the men. There were areas to improve, ro be sure.
I just see the "this movie was terrible" attitude as justified.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse