Upcoming Movies: My Take.

April 15

Scream 4: 

In 1997, Wes Craven simultaneously parodied and rebuilt the slasher genre that he helped create twenty years earlier. Now fourteen years after the first “Scream” film, he returns with a new sequel; one that is rumored to be the beginning of a new trilogy playing with the possibilities and confines of horror films. What I wonder is how the last fourteen years will affect the franchise. Not only because “Scream” sported two sequels (the first of which held up, the second one: not so much), but because the nature of the horror genre has changed so much during that time. Since “Scream,” audiences have seen “The Blair Witch Project” and its spiritual successor “Paranormal Activity,” films which went the opposite direction from slashers and went for subtlety and mood over gore and violence. Of course the last decade also brought forth the horror sub-genre not-so-lovingly dubbed “torture porn,” films like the “Saw” Franchise and “Hostel,” where violence and gore takes such prevalence, it borders (or crosses into) the realm of perverse pleasure. How will a decade of changes to the genre affect a series that comments on the genre? 

I am dived; on one side I fear that Wes Craven is just trying to lure in audiences by making yet another by-the-numbers sequel in a well-established franchise in order to cash in. The optimist in me hopes that he is returning because he feels as though there is still fun to be had with the “Scream” team. Given that he has been able to cast such up and comers like Emma Roberts and Alison Brie along with the original cast of Neve Campbell, Courtney Cox, and David Arquette, it sounds promising. We will see when it comes out this Friday.

Rio: 

Gone are the times when studios can just put a few talking animals on screen and expect a hit. So the new computer-generated animated feature “Rio” has an uphill battle to win over critics. The G-Rated comedy stars Jesse Eisenberg as a Blu, a Macaw taken to South America to be reunited with the last female of his species Jewell, voiced by Anne Hathaway. There’s been a surprising lack of advertising on this film, a badsign for this kind of kid-flick, but advance critics have given it positive notice. I walk into this film cautiously optimistic. With its colorful pallet and a wide-ranging A-list cast, this animated feature might be able to go the distance… but I’ve been burned before. 

On a personal note, we don’t often see many kids films set in locations known for their rampant poverty. If they’re starting a trend, I would kill to see a Pixar film set in Detroit’s west side. It would certainly be different anyway.

The Conspirator:

Robert Redford directs this real-life drama about Mary Surratt, the lone woman charged as a co-conspirator in the Lincoln assassination following the Civil War. As a history buff, I’m sold on almost any film with a good cast, a good director, a decent script, and a respect for the actual events. This film certainly has a good cast being lead by actors like Robin Wright Penn, James McAvoy, and Tom Wilkinson. The story of Mary Surratt is rife with drama and intrigue. The remaining factors that could make or break the film are the execution of the story and, surprisingly, Redford. While his acting ability is nigh incontrovertible, his history behind the camera is less-so, having directed duds like “The Legend of Bagger Vance” and “Lions for Lambs.” A historical legal drama sounds more like it could fall into his wheel house.

April 22

Water for Elephants:

The highly anticipated adaptation of the Sara Gruen novel, it tells the story of veterinary student Jacob (Robert Pattinson) who falls in love under the big top with a circus’ star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon) during The Great Depression. Having never read the book, I’m walking into this film cold, but I have heard nothing but good things. It’s being helmed by Francis Lawrence, who has thus far directed music videos and action films like “Constantine” and “I am Legend.” He sounds like an odd resume for a romance, but this could just be his big break. 

“Water for Elephants” is a film that has the opportunity to be full of emotion, feeling, and hope. It also could be a cheesy, unbelievable melodrama. Still, heading into the summer block-buster season this could be a refreshing blast of cool (non-exploding, super-powered, or transforming) air.

Apollo 18:

The latest in the “previously unreleased footage” sub-genre of horror and suspense along the lines of “Paranormal Activity,” “Apollo 18” is the story of the secret final manned mission to the moon. While we traditionally thought that missions to the moon were no longer funded due to things like high cost, and extreme impracticality, the actual answer, as it turns out, is monsters.

More or less, this is most likely going to be “Paranormal Activity” in space. I’m curious how they plan to have a full film full of surprises and shocks on the moon because it’s, you know, pretty empty. I’m guessing it will probably be good for a few good jumps for horror fans, with some creepy claustrophobic scenes between the film’s two stars, but I doubt scientific accuracy or logic is going to be high on the list of priorities, so you can leave the astronomy book at home.

April 29

Fast Five:

It’s that time of year again. Time for another “The Fast and the Furious” sequel. Watching the trailer, I half expected Vin Diesel to break character and moan that this is the only job he can get now. Fast Five is sure to have at least one or two decent action sequences squeezed between horrible dialogue, sexy chicks in bikinis, and car porn. That and Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, and Dwayne Johnson standing around looking tough.

I don’t expect this movie to try to be anything it’s not; but this is a franchise that used up its reserve of cool about two films ago. Could it surprise us with a fun two hours of action and adventure? Sure, but I’m not expecting much.

Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil:

Having barely been able to sit through the original “Hoodwinked,” an updated and hipper version of the red-riding hood tale, I don’t look forward to this particular sequel. Anne Hathaway seems to agree, having ditched her role as Red and joined the much better looking “Rio.” How they plan to continue the adventures of Red (now voiced by Hayden Panettiere) and her skydiving granny (voiced by Glenn Close), I don’t know. Since the original was filled with tired jokes and gimmicks used in a plethora of other animated features, I don’t really have any desire to find out.

"Your Highness" Review

My review of the film "Your Highness" (opening this weekend) can be found on the web site of The Oakland Press.

http://theoaklandpress.com/articles/2011/04/08/entertainment/doc4d9f1625324e1602978035.txt?viewmode=fullstory

"Hop" Review

2.1/5.0 Stars

While watching the new film “Hop” I could practically hear a studio executive saying that they wanted a movie to get some families into the theaters during the Easter season. What is the result? About what you would expect: a less than terrible, but overall forgettable two hours. It tells the story of E.B., the new Easter Bunny (voiced by Russell Brand). E.B. is destined to take over the family businesses from his father, but all he wants to do is drum.  It is then that he runs off and befriends a struggling slacker (James Marsden) from Hollywood and the comedic hijinks ensue.

At least that’s what’s supposed to happen.

The problems with “Hop” are pretty evident right off the bat. It’s a familiar story that audiences have heard many times before, usually in the form of a Christmas holiday movie. At times the movie even feels like it was rewritten from a script meant for a Christmas film. In this world the Easter Bunny lives on Easter Island instead of the North Pole, drives a sleigh pulled by chicks instead of reindeer, and works year round in a candy factory instead of a toy shop. 

“Hop” is a paint-by-numbers movie with enough gags to entertain young children, but with nothing really new to say. For those in the proper age group, “Hop” will probably work. The movie is rife with jokes about animals defecating jellybeans, men being attacked by dogs, and unbearably cute rabbits. 

If “Hop” had been kept as a kids-only spectacle, its flaws like unbearable simplicity, familiarity, and a lack of logic and focus, could be forgiven. Yet the film tries desperately to be hip, and inserts jokes intended for older audiences that ultimately fall flat. When David Hasselhoff appears in an extended cameo, how many five-year-olds will know who he is, much-less understand a Knightrider reference?

Not that there is anything wrong with a kids movie with some jokes added for adults. Films aimed at kids have been doing that with regularity since the first “Shrek” film. Last year Illumination Entertainment, who made “Hop,” had their own success using that formula with the well-rounded “Despicable Me.” But what made “Despicable Me” work was a strong sense of originality and fun where everything about “Hop” seems manufactured and contrived.

There could have been more to “Hop;” the animation is well done and the voice actors bring some life to their roles, but the live action portions coupled with a chronic lack of creativity and a poorly constructed script keep the movie mired, meandering, and staggeringly predictable.

Why are the Film Incentives so Important?

Earlier this week, the film “Five Year Engagement” starring Jason Segal and Emily Blunt was approved for filming in Michigan. This makes it the first film to do so since Governor Rick Snyder proposed massive cuts to the film incentives and a yearly cap of 25 million dollars. Even though most Michigan residents have heard about the incentives and the planned cuts many seem to be unaware of what the incentives do, and what dialing them back would entail.

The incentives began three years ago as a Republican bill that found support from Governor Jennifer Granholm. These measures give tax breaks to film, television, and commercial projects that decide to film within Michigan. Although 43 other states have similar measures, Michigan has, by far, the most extensive.

Since they were enacted in 2008, over 7,000 production jobs have been created in addition to 4,000 acting jobs for extras and day players. This doesn’t include the many peripheral jobs ranging from hotels to grocery stores that have been created or supported by the addition of this influx of new businesses.

 Snyder claims that Michigan no longer can afford the incentives, citing the 1.4 billion dollar deficit. He also says the incentives aren't needed because his plan to drastically lower corporate taxes on all businesses would still provide a good atmosphere to do business in Michigan.

“It’s a bad idea in that it’s a burgeoning industry that we’ve got going in Michigan and it’s an opportunity to grow more jobs,” said Rick Hert of The West Michigan Film Office. “My problem with [these cutbacks] is that we’ve never given it a chance to get off the ground.“

“If [the cap] remains at 25 million,” continued Hert, “we won’t have enough momentum or force to grow a new industry here… It’s a tourism issue, it’s an economic development issue, it’s a marketing issue for the state, and it’s an opportunity to work with the local business community.”

Many in the film industry said that cuts to the incentives would make them pull projects out of the state. The filmmakers behind the big budget blockbuster “The Avengers” decided to go elsewhere simply at the mention of Snyder’s proposed cuts. 

“It would be a catastrophe,” says producer Randall Emmett, who has shot six films in the state. “[We would] try and continue shooting in Michigan because of a commitment I’ve made to the community, but with caps or cuts to the incentives, we could be forced to go somewhere else.”

Without economic growth and the influx of new businesses here, we simply won’t have the tax base to allow for Michigan to stay where it is, much-less climb out of the slump that has been gripping the state. As opposed to trying to prop up older industries that are already struggling, or hoping to lure new industries here, the film incentives are already bringing new healthy businesses here and have, thus far, been proven a success. Keeping the film incentives intact seem to be Michigan’s best hope for growth.