In Progress: 2008

Review coming soon.

An entertaining, albeit unoriginal, superhero flick. This proves 3 things about making a successful and awesome superhero movie:

1) Get a great cast - Robert Downey Jr. WAS Tony Stark and completely owned the movie; Jeff Bridges, Gwenyth Paltrow, and Terrence Howard rounded out a great supporting cast.

2) Amazing special effects - seriously, some of the best I've ever seen, only made better on the big screen.

3) Writers/Director completely immersed in the source material - Favreau's direction and the script weren't the best, but the passion for the character/world were apparent throughout and you could tell everyone had a blast making this.

Hopefully this'll serve as the proper springboard for Marvel Studios' 'Avengers' series and the blueprint for more successful comic book-screen adaptations. After crap like Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Elektra, and the Fantastic Four series, I'm glad someone finally came to their senses and delivered a truly awesome movie.

Hey, I enjoyed it. Spielberg can direct action scenes in his sleep and it's the first time Ford's been good in anything in God knows how long. Shia wasn't as terrible as I thought he'd be and the supporting cast overall was fairly good (great to see Marion back, even if she had little to do). Blanchett's arguably my favorite villain since Belloq in Raiders, as the rapier-wielding badass femme fatale Col. Spalko. Where this film really shines, however, is when you see Indy in his element - at the school, his home, the diner, showing his age and experience. It's definitely better than the uneven 'Temple of Doom,' that's for sure.

Where this one fails, however, stems directly from one source - the screenplay. I have no problem with the basic plot or the MacGuffin (aliens in Indy's world are no less ridiculous than the Ark blowing up Nazis with reckless abandon), but after 19 years this is the best overall script they could fine? Koepp's screenplay suffers due to its underdeveloped characters (Mac and Marion were ultimately wasted), cringe-worthy lines ("their treasure was knowledge... knowledge was their treasure"), and inability to explore the best themes in the story (old age, family, and the quest for power/knowledge). Oh, and I fully blame the CG animals on Lucas, who apparently loves that sort of kiddie shit.

This was a great experience to see on the big screen and like I said earlier, it's not the worst of the series, but after almost 20 years, this is the best we could get? There's no way it would satisfy everyone's expectations and it should've been made around the early '90s (imagine a young Leo DiCaprio as Mutt... yeah, tell me that's not an upgrade over the Even Stevens kid). After reading the Darabont script, it seems like Lucas forced the screenwriters to shoe-horn these ideas into their respective scripts. I preferred this version to what eventually ended up on screen (Marion's actually back, Indy's more proactive, different action set pieces, more depth to the story, no Mutt or Mac), but it's not a huge improvement. So I guess you could say this was flawed from the start. Only time will tell.

Going into this movie, I didn't really know what to expect. Riding off the coat-tails of Iron Man's success, it seemed like this had the same formula as that film (stellar casting, nods to the source material, hints toward the future, etc...) to make it a fitting companion piece. The only thing holding this back is the baggage dumped upon it by Ang Lee's mostly disappointing predecessor. It's unfair to compare the two, since they're two separate animals, but I felt this film captured that balance between the character drama and full-on action scenes that the other film never obtained.

Leterrier knows how to direct an action scene, and do it well - all 3 action set pieces packed that necessary punch and built upon the others as the film progressed. His faults, however, lie in giving the tender moments of the film the same care and panache as those action scenes. Like I said earlier, that balance was definitely struck, but wavered in its effectiveness - whether this is due to the chemistry between Norton and Tyler, who share their best moments in silence (right before he goes to bed at her place, in the helicopter before the climactic battle), but can't click when there's dialogue.

Speaking of the acting, Marvel struck gold with this one. Edward Norton embodied everything about Bruce Banner, the tormented soul who's never fully at rest almost in the same way that Robert Downey Jr. wrapped himself up in the glory and panache of Tony Stark in 'Iron Man.' That makes all of the difference in these new Marvel joints, they're casting actors, not personalities. Tim Roth and William Hurt chew as much scenery as possible when they're on screen, and it's a joy to watch (was I the only one that laughed at the fact that "Mr. Orange" is in the movie when they mention a Mr. Blue and Mr. Green? Where's Mr. Pink?). I really dug Tim Blake Nelson's role and hope it gets developed further in either a direct sequel (which I hope happens) or the Avengers film itself. Liv Tyler ultimately ends up being the odd woman out on this one - it's not that she isn't good, but doesn't excel in her part to the same degree as her fellow cast members.

Seeing Lou Ferrigno and Stan Lee in plot-driving cameos was a good kick, as were the nods and winks to the TV series (theme music, shots of the green eyes, and butchering of the famous quote) and setting up S.H.I.E.L.D. and Captain America's continued and future involvement in the Marvel films, respectively.

This film hit the mark greater than the previous incarnation, but still was far from being perfect. It was worth seeing in theaters and definitely has me jonesing for another watchable and enjoyable Marvel Comics flick.

Interesting genre mash-up and fun monster flick. The shakycam bothered some, but I really dug the style and only knowing as much as the characters on the screen. The characters could've been made more sympathetic, not sure if that's a fault of the acting, script, or both. It's not a great movie by any means, but it's solid enough to enjoy and was a great theater experience.

Good enough movie to sustain my interest for an hour and a half. The simplistic plot lends itself to some pretty funny comedy with the "sweding" of the films. While Michel Gondry's writing keeps this film from being truly great, his direction is still in the upper tier of the modern class of directors (the "sweding" montage toward the middle in particular was spectacular). Like I said earlier, the writing isn't solid enough to elevate the story, leaving the cast to carry it based on personality - if you're not a fan of the principals, Jack Black in particular, then you're screwed. For the most part, it's a fairly average movie, but has enough heart and warmth (especially in the closing sequence) that make it a little better than it is, but not by much. It was worth seeing at least once, although it's nothing something I'd watch again in the near future.

Better than I expected it be, but it's still a slick, Hollywood fabrication of a real story. Interesting enough to keep my attention, but the leads weren't particularly good (including Kevin Spacey, sadly), and there had to be that painful, mostly unnecessary narration throughout. The soundtrack was pretty good for a fairly average movie though.

A mildly entertaining family film with enough bursts of action and fantasy elements to satisfy most kids. I have no idea why the hell I saw this in theaters though.

"Die Hard meets Cheech and Chong" made by the Freaks & Geeks gang? Count me in.

The last one was the best Bond flick in a long damn time, hope this sequel (apparently the first in the whole Bond series) carries the momentum over.

Anchorman and Talladega are two of the funniest movies of the past 5-10 years, hopefully this new Ferrell/McKay team-up will deliver the goods. John C. Reilly being involved is always a great thing.

Could be the runaway best comedy of the summer. Glad to hear it's gunning for the R rating and it's similar in tone to the criminally underrated 'Ben Stiller Show.' I love Hollywood parodies and most involved in the cast/crew, so it's sitting pretty high on my list.

A new Coen Bros. movie is always welcome.

It's a new Woody Allen movie, of course I'm in.

Alright, when you have one of my favorite directors (Fincher) and two actors I really like (Pitt and Blanchett) involved, it's hard for me not to be psyched for this.

The marketing for this movie has been immense and I'm generally a big fan of Pixar flicks. It'd be nice to see this on the big screen if not for the fact that about 100 screaming kids will be in the theater with me.

I'm a sucker for anything Star Wars and this looks cool as hell.

Still need to see this, probably catch it on DVD or the dollar theater.

Charlie Kaufman's one of my favorite writers working in film today. If his first foray into directing is even half as good as his screenwriting, then we're all in for something special.

Ridley Scott's pretty hit-or-miss for me and now quite the average action/thriller director. Teaming up with Leo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe, and Departed screenwriter William Monaghan has got me pretty excited.

Clint Eastwood's another director whose work I'd like to delve into, and with a pretty crazy-sounding story and rave reviews from Cannes, call me excited.

This, coupled with Guerilla, has got me pretty interested. I wonder how it's all going to be work out, but I'm psyched to see it.

(see: The Argentine)

Come on, if you're even a small fan of the series you've got to be the least bit excited for this? I have no clue what it's about, but I'm still in.

This new brand of "comic book"-esque comic book adaptations are really fucking cool. Any movie with Sam Jackson as the villain in a huge fur coat with a bevy of hot babes at his side has to be good, right?

New Baz Luhrmann movie = one of the leading contenders for most beautifully shot films of the year. Hopefully this'll be the perfect vehicle for Hugh Jackman to get the kudos he more than deserves.

Again, this could be terrible, but why, if you're fans of both De Niro and Pacino, would you not want to see them on-screen together again, even if they're in the twilight of their careers? Even if the movie sucks, they'll make it watchable based on personality alone - Pacino's done it with 'The Devil's Advocate' and De Niro's done it with something as abysmal as 'Showtime.'