Logo

Before Jennifer's Body even opened, everyone had already heard this movie wasn't anything to get worked up about, not that the studio didn't try. And they really did try. Through many interviews and blogs it was hinted that maybe, just maybe you'd get to see Megan Fox naked and it seemed that every movie trailer for this film had a slow-mo of Megan Fox unzipping something. But alas, even the "I go both way" puns by Fox wasn't enough to get moviegoers to stop thinking about...meatballs, Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs that is, this weekend's box office winner that pulled in $30.1 million.

Here's the strange thing however, I actually don't completely blame Fox for Jennifer's Body's abysmal opening weekend of $6.8 million. Many people who have seen this movie come away with the line, "Fox really wasn't that bad..." In fact, the acting really isn't among the top complaints for this movie. From what I understand it was mediocre, and definitely could've been better, but the consensus is it wasn't completely bad. I even hear that Adam Brody did a wonderful job and is quite funny in this movie. What I also hear is that what's really horrible about this movie is the story, and unfortunately that has little to do with the actors and a lot to do with the writer/director team of Diablo Cody and Karyn Kusama.

Not that I'm saying Fox did well in this film, or that she's a great actress but I do think that even good actors can't carry movies that are, in the end, just bad. I also believe there were some big mistakes made by the marketing team for this movie. Like copying True Blood's series posters, or by presenting this film as a serious horror movie when it really wasn't. Even without these mistakes, the unfortunate truth seems to be that Jennifer's Body was just a lousy movie, and especially during these times, it's going to take more than that to get audiences to shell out for a ticket.

The complete rundown is as follows:

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs – $30,100,000
The Informant! – $10,545,000
Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself – $10,060,000
Love Happens – $8,456,000
Jennifer’s Body – $6,800,0009
9 – $5,458,000
Inglourious Basterds – $3,603,000
All About Steve – $3,400,000
Sorority Row – $2,489,000
The Final Destination – $2,375,00

It was completely my intention to write a Final Destination review for you guys, but something extraordinary happened to me while I was at the theater today. (I'm not going to mention the theater by name but I can neither confirm nor deny that there might be a picture here somewhere.) I do believe I've met the dumbest collection of employees ever to work at one location.

The funny thing is I actually came up with quite a few movies for this subject. Although I'm not really sure if that's funny or sad, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt to funny. Now don't get me wrong though, this post isn't about movies that I think are going to be bad or any kind of negative prediction. Rather, this is just a look at films that have for whatever reason, failed to create a sense of interest in me. These are films that I looked at or read about and the extent of my enthusiasm ended with a shoulder shrug.

So here it is, my post about films that have undoubtedly created an underwhelming sense of "meh."


MacGruber
Hmmmm, a movie that is based on an SNL skit that is short, kinda funny and always ends up the same way. Yeah, not excited.

It's just odd to me that the big draw for this movie I hear people use all the time is, "Oh, it was an SNL skit!" So? I love SNL skits as well as the next guy, and have absolutely nothing against them, but usually the draw is to see more of the character you know and love, not simply because it was a skit. Granted it was a funny skit, but the humor had nothing to do with the character. It was because he blew himself up. Yes, he did have issues but I can think of characters with much funnier issues then he had. Like Canteen Boy and Mr. Armstrong's scratchy chest and beard.


The Green Hornet
I have tried with this movie, I really have. I actually still am, but I'm just not excited about seeing Seth Rogen as The Green Hornet. It's just odd to me, and even the fact that Nicholas Cage and Cameron Diaz are in it isn't helping.

It's nothing against the actors but usually when I hear about a superhero or comic book film, part of the excitement is seeing who they pick to play the role we all loved watching or reading about. This casting left a weird, lift your eyebrow up and say, "are you sure?" kinda feeling. I'll keep following it because I really hope that my feelings are amped up by the time this film rolls around.


Wolverine 2
Let's Face it, the best thing that came out of X-Men Origins was Ryan Reynolds as Wade Wilson. So if I was an X-Man character, and I just had a movie that left everyone talking about how awesome some other X-Man character was, I'd definitely reexamine the next movie I was in. Or at least make sure it wasn't the same crappy montage of scenes based on how many X-Men characters you could squeeze all in one movie.

The only reason I'm even remotely interested in Wolverine 2 is because of the buzz I hear about the source material. Based on Chris Claremont and Frank Miller's four-issue Wolverine mini-series published in 1982, fans everywhere are in agreement that the source material is awesome. Which means this time around, this movie better be good, because Wade Wilson won't be in this one.


Chronicles of Narnia 3: The Voyage of the Dawn Trader
Is anyone excited for this movie? Anyone?

*cue crickets*












Resident Evil 5: Afterlife
Ok ok, you're a superhuman creation that kills zombies made by a multi-billion dollar corporation, we get it!

We also understand that you're plagued by the fact that you cannot seem to sever the link this company has with you or finally rid the world, once and for all, of it's presence. Just when you feel you're getting rid of them, the Umbrella corp. rears it's ugly head again. Funny, I have the same feeling about these movies.

That's it for now, although I'll be sure to keep an eye out for this list again. I'll be updating it as updated information about these movies gets released. Who knows, I might even add a few more to it. I have a couple in mind already. G.I. Joe 2 anyone?

The story that Ridley Scott, the director of the original Alien film, would be directing another Alien movie came out this past Friday. However, the announcement came with two developments that I wanted to talk about.

The first being that the new project was announced as a prequel to the first movie, Alien. I'm interested in finding out what the general consensus is on this, simply because the people I've spoken to about this expressed very mixed emotions. Some were happy just to see a pure Alien movie again as opposed to a shared Aliens vs. Predator film, while others were not at all happy with the idea of a prequel.

For the latter group, the continuity of the franchise was a big deal for them. They argued that prequels have the huge potential to try and take story lines and characters that have already been established in a "new direction", thus undermining the already existing movies. Especially in a franchise as well known and loved as Aliens.

This is somewhat of an odd concern to me, because isn't this a risk you run with all continuations and not just prequels? With any story that's continued if not done properly you run the risk of having the feel of two completely unrelated, disjointed segments as opposed to one continuous storyline. So why should prequels bear the brunt of this burden? Also, in this case, shouldn't the fact that the director of the original Alien movie is the one doing the prequel carry any weight?

Personally, although I'm always open to the idea of a prequel I find that I do not enjoy them as much. For me part of the enjoyment I get out of a movie experience is not knowing where the characters and story will take you. Watching a prequel for me is like reading a book when you already know how it ends.

The other piece of information to think about is the statement from Sigourney Weaver about Ripley's involvement in the new Alien movie. Or more specifically, the lack thereof. In an interview with MTV news Weaver expressed that although she is happy Scott is connecting with the series once again, she couldn't see how Ripley could be a part of the prequel. When I read that, I paused to think about it. An Aliens movie without Ripley. An Aliens movie without Ripley?? No way.

Maybe this concept is so weird to me because in all the previous Aliens movies she was the character that was indestructible, there was no way she could die. Hell, even when she did die, didn't we resurrect her just so we could have another movie? So now when presented with the idea that she won't be in the next movie, it's not a concept that goes down easily. Especially when thinking about the storyline choices this presents.

If the story is before Ripley and the Nostromo's fated run in with the face suckers, either the movie is about the Aliens themselves, or about some other group of humans that met them before and all got their faces vacuumed and melted also. Which doesn't hold a whole lot of appeal to me, but I realize I might be in the minority there. Call me sentimental, but if it had to be a prequel, I rather the movie include some familiar faces of the people who we know and love and got their faces melted onscreen first.

So let me know, what are your thoughts on some of this information?

Ohhh man, this was perfect. A reader made this for John Campea over at The Movie Blog and I laughed. I only wish that I had a bigger size to send to my friends. So to the reader who made this, great job!

When Ryan Reynolds was announced as the green lantern there was a huge flood of fan art that started to circulate the Internet. Varying in all levels of skill from the professional looking to the not so much, but all of them seem to convey the anticipation many have for this movie. So I decided to gather up a few and show them to you here. The ones that I put here came /Film, FusedFilm and SuperHeroHype.

I also included a fan made Green Lantern trailer for you to look at. It was made before the official announcement that Ryan Reynolds would be the Green Lantern and Nathan Fillion was a popular fan choice, no disrespect to Reynolds of course. I thought it was pretty well made so I decided to include it here.

Ghostbuster fans now have a drink all their own. And why shouldn't they? After all, if Mountain Dew can give World of Warcraft players their very own color coordinated drink, Ghostbuster fanatics should get one too.

So here it is, the new energy drink sold in Spencer Gifts, ladies and gentleman I bring you: Ectoplasm


Yeah yeah, I knew this isn't exactly film news but, oh man, this made me laugh!

You guys all know the feeling, because I'm sure it's all happened to you. You're getting ready to watch a movie with some friends and you're stoked cause you've been looking forward to this movie for a while.

So you meet up with your friends, you watch the movie and somewhere in the film you realize that this was not what you wanted to see. You think to yourself, "What happened to the drama that I was promised? Man, this movie sucks." Then, here's the funny part, your friend who was sitting next to you, watching the same movie says, "That was great, 'lotta good laughs, great comedy!" Comedy, WTF? I didn't pay to see a comedy!! But then something weird happens, you rethink the film and slowly realize that yeah, as a comedy that movie was good...but it was supposed to be a drama!!

That, my friends, is called baggage. So how do we get it, and more importantly, how can we avoid bringing it to a movie?

I believe the, "How do we get it?" part is a two fold answer. One part, surprisingly has little to do with us. It has to do with how a movie is presented to us by the movie studios. Sometimes the studio can present us, through teasers, trailers and even posters, an image which the movie has little to do with. This can happen with characters or even an entire genre. A good character example is that mess of a movie called, X-men Origins: Wolverine. In almost every trailer you see them advertising Gambit, The Blob or that cool shot where Ryan Reynolds splits that bullet in half as Wade Wilson. Sadly, all those characters had minuscule parts in the movie, and actually had very little to do with the film as a whole.

With genres it happens in the same manner, but it's the feel of a movie that gets misrepresented. I recently watched an interview of Eli Roth where he talked about this and cites his own, Cabin Fever as an example. He mentioned that when people were presented the film as a straight horror movie, they hated it. But when they were told that it was just a fun movie with some things you've never seen before, people loved it.

A more recent illustration of almost the exact same thing happening is with Jennifer's Body. A trailer of this movie was presented by Fox studios that aired pre-Bruno. It was marketed as a serious horror movie and the overwhelming response was negative. However, several days later director Karyn Kusama, writer Diablo Cody and producer Jason Reitman released a "filmmakers trailer" of the movie which presented the movie as more of a comedic horror. They did this because they didn't think the studio's version really portrayed what the movie was really about. The response to that trailer has been very positive.

The second part in that two fold answer to, "How we pick up baggage?" lies with....you. Yep, in part we are responsible for how much baggage we bring to a movie. Everyday through word of mouth or what we read we are presented with reviews and opinions that may not accurately reflect how we feel about something. How much of that informational baggage, which surrounds your personal universe, you bring to a movie experience is completely up to you. If critic or a friend says a movie is terrible, do you think it's terrible just because they did? Before you even see the movie? If you do, then you might just be bogging yourself down in a movie you might have enjoyed.

Now that we covered how we can pick it up, how can we avoid bringing it? The answer is soo simple you'll probably laugh. Make up your own mind. Yep, that's it. In the same interview Roth says a very good line, "People's opinions of movies are very directly related to how they were sold the film." Ok so if studios have to sell us an idea of a movie, how much of that idea are we buying in to? If you see a movie that you think you might like, do some research on it. Notice I said research, as in actual information, not what people think. Try to find things that give you an accurate idea of what the film is really about, so you can understand a movie before going to watch it, without having passed judgment on it already.

Now can we use those reviews as a tool? Sure, I do. I like to look up reviews to see things like plots or the story synopsis or whatever helps me get a picture about the movie. Notice I said "a picture" not, "the critic's" picture. Don't think a movie is crap just because someone says it is, and don't look up reviews to see how you should feel about a movie. Critics are people giving their opinions, that's all. No movie is going to appeal to everyone, so don't complicate things for yourself. Remember guys, opinions are like assholes and elbows, everyone has one. So make up your own. You may find yourself enjoying more movies that way.

The question I've been asked most since the Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince premier in London: "Since when did Emma Watson become hot?!?"

I don't know either guys, I swear she was a little kid a second ago. But for those of you who haven't pictures of her, here she is:

Hello everyone!

So on this very special day CinemaFreaks would like to wish you a HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!

May your parties be incredible, may they be safe and may they be wild!!

I consider myself a very reasonable person. There are few things that agitate me, BUT HOLY FUCK WHY WON'T THESE MOVIES DIE?

Good movies that get made into crappy sequels happen all the time. Usually though, whoever makes the crappy sequel gets the point that, their movie was indeed crap, and moves on. Nope, not with RE. For some reason someone insists on making these movies, and I use that term loosely, until the franchise is as mindless as the zombies in them.

Now I liked the very first RE, it had good action and it was fun. Every other RE movie after that sucked. The only distinguishable factor between them being their varying degrees of suckage. After the last release of Resident Evil: Extinction I thought, "Ok, they're done, no way could it get any worse." No one in their right mind would make another Resident Evil movie.... right?

Wrong.

According to ShocktTillyouDrop, Sony's Screen Gems has announced the release date of September 17, 2010 for Resident Evil 4, tentatively entitled: Resident Evil 4: Afterlife.

Dear God, somebody please make it stop.

When it comes to Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, there seems to be two major discussions. One is the fairly well known debate of whether you loved it or hated it. The other topic of interest comes from the introduction of Ramon Rodriguez.

(There are a couple spoilers in here by the way, I'm guessing by this time nearly everyone on the planet has seen this movie, but you never know)

In fact, according to Fused Film Bay has even showed a bit of personal satisfaction about discovering Rodriguez saying, "We went looking for a sidekick in this movie, Shia’s sidekick, and we find this new kid who really pops on screen. I think he’s going to have a real bright career. It’s great to work with big stars, but it’s always fun to discover people.” So it is no surprise that when speaking about potentially doing a Transformers 3 movie, Micheal Bay has said that if the project pans out, Rodriguez would have a more substantial role.

To me this is definitely not a good thing. Seriously, am I the only one who found this guy's character to be annoying? Bay had stated that they were looking for a sidekick for LaBeouf with this role. I don't believe that is anything close to what they ended up with. For me it seemed like Leo Spitz (Rodriguez) was constantly crying, or whining or sniveling about something.

When I think of sidekick I think of someone who champions the hero through what may seem like insurmountable odds. I'm not saying the hero and the sidekick have to be the Brady Bunch but somewhere along the line you'd like to get the feeling that they are on the same page. I didn't get that from Rodriguez's character. For most of the film it seemed like Sam Witwicky (LaBeouf) was at odds with Leo, either having to yell at him or drag him through something and if I'm not mistaken, didn't Agent Simmons (Turroro) have to taser him to make him stop crying?? Pfft, a sidekick indeed.

Now I know some people are going to say, but Abby, didn't Leo lead Sam to Agent Simmons? Yes I know, I'm not saying he never helped him. There were a few instances where Leo contributed, he helped Sam find Agent Simmons and he helped create a distraction at the museum. After that, what else did he contribute? What heroic action would dub him worthy of being called Sam's sidekick? Did he do anything else even remotely important?

No. What it seemed he did a lot of was cry. He cried when they got to Egypt, he cried when they were going to their destination, and he cried and screamed when they got shot at.

Don't confuse my dislike of Rodriguez's character with him as an actor either, I haven't seen him in anything else. It was purely his character in this movie that drove me crazy. I was actually happy he got tasered.

Anyone else think if they do a Transformers 3 that they could do without this guy?

You know I think it's funny. I actually laugh when people try to blame each other because of it. The question of course being, "Why is Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen such a success?" After all, the fanboys can't decide if they love it or want to run to the nearest corner with their Optimus Prime action figure crying about all the movie's injustices, and the critics unanimously hate it. So why is it doing so well at the box office? This situation is mounting to a comical, "Whose fault is it?" scenario with the critics pointing the finger at the fanboys and the fanboys giving the finger to the critics. So if both the critics and the fanboys hate it, why is this film so successful?

The simple answer to, “Why is this film successful?” is because the movie is awesome. It's because of that simple fact that audiences love it. The action and special effects made us say, "Wow". And before people start to say that I'm just someone who loved the film and doesn't want to see it trashed, take a look at my review and you'll see that even though I say that I liked the movie, I only gave it a 6.5 out of 10. ( See my review here) Another thing people might think is that I'm not a real fan of The Transformers. You'd be wrong there to. I grew up watching the Transformers and I love them. Trust me, you don't want to go there. So all prejudices aside, let me expand a bit on this wow factor of mine.

I’d be pretty hard pressed to exactly define a wow factor, because I believe it’s different for everyone. The closest term I can think of to describe it for everyone is an element or ‘factor’ that made us love something. It’s that single awesome memory or moment when something, somewhere took your breath away. I also know that sometimes an audience yearns for a move that makes us remember the wow factor. Much like a professional ballplayer who yearns to go back to basics with his friends on his local neighborhood court, or that old dusty baseball diamond in that beat up field. These games fulfill a need to remember why they started to love the game they play in the first place. A moviegoer has this desire to, and sometimes a movie appeals to us so much because it fulfills that. With the RoTF I think the need fulfilled is to simply sit back and be amazed. I mean, yeah some of the acting wasn't that great and I even warm people about the cheesy dialogue, but did the special effects and sheer scale of the movie wow audiences? Absolutely.

Think back to when you were a kid, think about what your favorite movie was. Did you love that movie because the dialogue was supported by well-developed characters and an intricate plot? Or did you love it simply because it made you say, "Wow"? As a kid I used to love watching Godzilla, and last thing I thought of when I watched him was the horrible dialogue or the crappy acting or the fact you could see the zipper on the guy’s Godzilla suit. I just thought he was awesome to watch. This is what Transformers 2 did for a lot of audiences.

The wow factor doesn't have to deal with action movies either. It can be something completely unrelated to action. It doesn't have to have amazing special effects or a multi gazillion dollar budget. All it has to do is make us say, "Wow" for whatever reason. For example, take another movie that did this long before the time of pundits, or bloggers or even popular usage of the Internet for that matter. The 1988 film, Beaches. Critics hated this movie describing it as, "emotionally cloistering", "over dramatic", and "sappy". And yeah even Roger Ebert, the guy who makes no bones about how much he hates Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, hated Beaches to.

But audiences loved it. It was a huge hit that grossed over fifty-seven million dollars, putting it in the top 15 for the entire year of 1988. Now fifty-seven million dollars may not seem like much now but when put into perspective that in the same year, Cocktail earned just over seventy-eight million, you see just how well Beaches really did. All because that film made us say, "Wow".

There has always been a gap between how critics and audiences think, the result being movies that critics and audiences disagree on. But every now and then there comes a movie that reminds just how different critics and audiences really are. When that time rolls around it doesn't matter how old we are, whether we're a fanboy or a nerd or a geek. All that matters at that time is what the audience needs.

So in a year that had earlier promised to wow us with films such as Xmen Origins: Wolverine and Angles & Demons which failed miserably to do so, we needed something. Quite frankly, we needed something to wow the shit out of us. Either by the amazing special effects or the sheer joy of seeing their favorite Transformer on screen, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen gave that to audiences, not critics, and audiences love it for that.

Michael Jackson, renowned singer, dancer and pop culture phenomenon died today due to cardiac arrest. He was only 50 years old.

The LA Times reports: "Los Angeles Fire Department Capt. Steve Ruda told The Times that paramedics responded to a 911 call from the home. When they arrived, Jackson was not breathing. The paramedics performed CPR and took him to UCLA Medical Center, Ruda said."

Michael Jackson's death was strangely felt by me, and in no way do I mean that unkindly. What I mean is that although Farrah Fawcett's and Ed Mcmahan's passing was very saddening news for me they were, in all respect and graciousness, a bit before my time. But not Micheal Jackson.

I actually remember hearing Micheal Jackson's Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' on the radio, I remember in the early 80's my father bought his record Thriller, I even remember dancing to Billie Jean.

In more recent times his choices and way of life drew controversy and skepticism from many people, and of late he often walked the love-hate relationship line with critics who called everything about him into question. Except for one area.

Michael Jackson's talent as a vocalist and entertainer was rarely, if ever, questioned. The King of Pop. That's what they called him, and there was no denying the man could sing, he could dance, and he was arguably one of the best entertainers in our time.

My thoughts and condolences go out to his family and friends.

Farrah Fawcett, a multiple Golden Globe and Emmy award nominee and critically acclaimed actress, lost her three year battle with cancer today.

CNN states, "Bloch told CNN that Ryan O'Neal, Fawcett's romantic partner since the mid-1980s, and her friend Alana Stewart were with Fawcett at Saint John's Hospital in Santa Monica, California, when she died."

Fawcett was also the star of many well regarded off-Broadway venues and highly rated televisions shows. Despite these awards and the fact that she became a pop culture and sex symbol for millions, many of us still remember her in the role where it first started. As private investigator, Jill Munroe, the Charlie's Angel with the awesome feathered hair.