Summer Movie Season: The Good, the Bad and the Maybe — Part II: Those We Dread
by John Nolte
Last week was a look at 5 summer films worthy of both ten-bucks and clock watching, next go-round will be those we’re unsure about, but today there’s no doubt a beating’s in store for anyone foolish enough to drop the jing. We will though, because during summer a cool poster promising explosions is all we ask.
May 1st: X-Men Origins: Wolverine – X-Men represents the most forgettable superhero franchise ever. To be fair, the only reason I remember those “Fantastic Four” flicks more is because of how hard they sucked, but over three films and 6-plus hours the only “X-Men” scene that made any kind of impression was Magneto’s escape in the first or second one. The Wolverine trailer promises more of the same: obvious special effects but no “moment,” and Hugh Jackman remains a phenomenon all too common these days: a television-level talent working on the big screen.
–
May 1st: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past – I’ve never looked forward to anything Matthew McConaughey’s done and don’t intend to change now. The high-concept romantic comedy is the worst genre going today but no matter how bad they are, they make money. “Four Christmases” and “What Happens in Vegas” proved that. The photo above makes me want to start reading books again.
–
May 8th: Melrose Trek – Yeah, I’ve been all over this, but thus far three scenes have been released and they are truly, truly bad. Kirk hitting on Uhura as she cracks jokes about sex with farm animals… Some things are just wrong. Regardless, the filmmakers want to put their best foot forward and these flat scenes proving there’s no chemistry between the players is the best they could do. There’s something odd about the look of the film, as well — I mean other than the overwhelming metrosexuality of it all.
–
May 15th: Angels and Demons – Do you have to be Roman Catholic to comprehend just how awful the first one was? Granted, it made a ton of money, but what a snorer. I was too bored to be offended, and the research was terrible. When we punish ourselves the whip goes in the left hand, not the right. And I don’t get these comparisons of Tom Hanks and Jimmy Stewart. They’re nothing alike, not even close. That’s not an insult, I like Hanks, but if he reminds me of anyone from the Golden Era it’s Joseph Cotten – and that’s just as big of a compliment.
–
June 5th: Land of the Lost - Other than his early Bush impersonation and “Step Brothers” (which I loved), Will Ferrell generally wears out his welcome in about 15 minutes. His refusal (or inability) to convey depth and sincerity might serve him well in this flip, post-modern age of Jon Stewart and raunchy, stupid comedies, but I hope to live long enough to see “Uncle Buck,” “Animal House,” “Vacation,” “American Pie” and “Caddyshack” outlive his tedious schtick.
–
August 7th: GI Joe – Our “Real American Hero” is now stationed in Brussels or something, and in this age of terrorism goes after a gun dealer … or something. Director Stephen Sommers hasn’t made anything approaching watchable since “The Mummy” in 1999 and this looks like his usual bombastic, numbing nonsense with some lame political correctness to boot. GI Joe … a real Brussels based hero … GI Joe!
Let me close by saying that my mind can be easily changed if the movie’s good. If “Che” could win me over, “Trek 90210″ has a shot.
Next up … “The Maybe” — those that could go either way.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
89 Comments
I love that! Hugh Jackman as "a television-level talent working on the big screen" Great one, John.
Actually, Wolverine was quite good, especially as compared to the first three.
I mean, I know this guy who knows this guy who has a friend who was watching it this one time when I stopped by to pick up donations for the homeless in Hollywood, who are also lepers with big dewy Hummel figurine eyes, because I care about the homeless lepers far too much to be personally involved with intellectual property theft and I was shocked that he would, but y'know, there it was.
But anyway it was pretty good. They should release more workprints as bonus tracks on retail DVDs, the behind-the-scenes stuff is almost more interesting than the final product.
Wolverine might be good. Out of this list it is the only one I'm considering actually seeing. Liev Schreiber is an underrated actor and his casting as Sabertooth might just be the spark that this kind of film needs to put it over the top. I do agree that the X-Men films were largely forgettable though. As for the rest…I'm with ya John.
I don't know about Wolverine. On one hand, the trailers look pretty standard. I think it's going to be the same movie I already saw three times with the X-Men franchise. But on the other hand, Gambit is in it, and Gambit was always my favorite character in the cartoons. So this one might get a look.
I plan to wait for Mr. Nolte's review on Star Trek. Since I have much the same complaints that he does about the trailers (look like that scene in Galaxy Quest where the kids dress up and play on the set that they built in the basement), if it wins him over, it will probably be worth me taking a look as well.
Everything else, I'm going to pass. Life is too short to watch romantic comedies (usually two lies for the price of one) or action flicks about "Real Belgian Heroes."
This is too easy, I know. But, my husband and I have a bet going. How long into the movie until we see Matthew McConaughey without his shirt?
I wish I could disagree about X-Men. I am to X-Men what Trekkers are to Star Trek. But the X-Men movies pale in comparison to the new Batman ones and the Spiderman ones. Jackman has never quite captured the true essence of Wolverine to me, but I have really enjoyed all the Magneto scenes.
What'll be next for our ol' buddy Opie Howard? After DA VINCI CODE and ANGELS AND DEMONS, He can follow up with a really cool CGI-enhanced PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION.
In the 200th episode of Stargate SG-1 (titled simply enough, "200"), they had a bit of fun in one segment "reimaging" the show with a younger-hipper cast. The joke at that time was aimed more at BSG, but once I heard about Melrose Trek, that skit immediately came to mind. The more I see of the upcoming Trek, the more I think of that ep. of SG-1.
Later in that episode, they tried a Gerry Anderson-ish, Supermarionation-ish, version of Stargate (the movie) and SG-1 (hilarious when the Stargate cut the strings). Maybe that's next for Trek as well…
I think you were a little harsh on the X-men franchise. I thought they actually got better as the series went on, and even the first was decent. Of course having read the comic I am not without my bias, and I have to admit to bigging a bit awed by seeing the characters I read about for so long come to life on screen.
Still, forgettable was a tad strong.
I would not be surprised.
Or a rebooting of a classic show: Mayberry CSI (Barney has nothing BUT bullets).
X-men was cool. X-men 2 was cooler, but X-3 was the lamer than lame. They killed off Cyclops in the first 10 minutes! wtf!?!?!?!?! Oh, and let's keep just throwing in more mutants and forget about developing the ones we already have. X-3 does not exist for me. Well, the "Juggernaut, bitch" part exists for me cuz it was the only part of the movie I enjoyed.
I have a feeling Wolverine is gonna suck for the same reason X-3 did. All it is in an excuse to jam in as many CGI mutant powers that they possible can and not bother with that "story" or "character development" malarkey. I'll still probably see it just to see how bad they butcher Gambit's character, since Gambit and Wolverine were always my favorites.
I agree with the comments defending the X Men movies. I grew up reading the comics (and I still have X Men #4, although the cover is gone and it's musty-smelling). I loved those movies, but totally hated how the third one turned out. Too depressing for words!
I also have to quibble with the statement about Hugh Jackman being "a television-level talent working on the big screen." I've enjoyed his work in everything I've seen him in (even Van Helsing). Of course I also very much enjoy just LOOKING at him and hearing his voice. I don't rule that out as being part of my enjoying his work.
Wow.. and to think I like Jackman in most of his movies… (Okay, Swordfish was kinda iffy…). And I've been a fan of the x-men franchise (Even if the yplayed with the Canon).. but when Gambit's introduced before wolvie into the x-men.. .no thanks.
I"m Trying to hold out hope for star trek 90210.. but we shall see. but surprisingly the only one of the 5 on John's list that I am interested in is GI Joe… of course, as more details slip out, it'll probably fall down my list from "Maybe" to "Ehh.. no thanks"
Wow.. and to think I like Jackman in most of his movies… (Okay, Swordfish was kinda iffy…). And I've been a fan of the x-men franchise (Even if the yplayed with the Canon).. but when Gambit's introduced before wolvie into the x-men.. .no thanks.
I"m Trying to hold out hope for star trek 90210.. but we shall see. but surprisingly the only one of the 5 on John's list that I am interested in is GI Joe… of course, as more details slip out, it'll probably fall down my list from "Maybe" to "Ehh.. no thanks"
According to Hasbro's website, the G.I. Joe of the film will not — I repeat, NOT — be based in Brussels. It will be based in "The Pit," where it was in the comics.
I think Jackman makes a good Wolverine. X2's a great superhero flick. I'm just hoping the movie isn't all "Splode".
I do have to agree, though, that Nolan's "Batman" flicks have raised the bar with comic book movies.
I for one will be seeing Wolverine, Star Trek, and GI Joe. I was born in 1983, I owe it to my childhood. I don't care how bad they suck.
I agree with that. Wolverine is not a tall, thin man. He's a short, old man, literally, he just can't age. Muscles, metal, fury and passion. That's Wolverine. Now, whether or not they could actually find someone in Hollywood to fit that bill is another story.
As a former comic book geek, making Juggernaut a mutant was a no-no for me. It was a lovely diversion, but like everything else in that movie, it was just wrong.
And yes, I know that Hollywood changes everything, but still…
Another fan of the first two X-Men films. (The moment when Wolverine is asked in the first film if it hurts when his claws come out and he responds "Ever time" is so right.)
But there is an odd dynamic in seeing an actor go beyond a character. I'd never seen Jackman before X-Men and when he debuted it was like seeing the character I'd read in the comics come to life. It was Wolverine on the screen. But now I don't just see Wolverine; I also see that guy who did a so-so guy hosting the Oscars. (But this doesn't bother me when I watch The Prestige, I can't explain it.)
Anyway, agree none of these looks good, but the rats at Paramont will get my Star Trek money anyway. I'll have the same attitude I had seeing the second two Star Wars sequels. Knowing I'll hate it, but not able to resist.
Will Ferrel in Land of the Lost? Good heavens….I'm horrified! I loved that show as a kid! I can't possibly watch this movie. It will destroy the fun I still remember having waiting for the next episode, like watching the remake of Lost in Space ruined that memory for me. Yick. I don't like anything Ferrel is in. He's so – so – I dunno – so-so.
Everytime they remake a childhood memory, they get it all wrong. Very very wrong. The campiness of those Marty Croft live/costumed shows and the over-sugared high of the third bowl of marshmallowed Ka-BOOM or BooBerry cereals while laying on the floor in your footie pajamas next to your brother just can't be reproduced. That's part of the charm of my memories of those kind of shows. The shows weren't all that good, but the part of being a child and seeing flying pylons and dinosaurs chasing hairy children with oversized teeth just can't be remade. Especially not by Will Ferrel.
Or, as my daughter says, "All of those good shows get replaced by crap."
Will Ferrel in Land of the Lost? Good heavens….I'm horrified! I loved that show as a kid! I can't possibly watch this movie. It will destroy the fun I still remember having waiting for the next episode, like watching the remake of Lost in Space ruined that memory for me. Yick. I don't like anything Ferrel is in. He's so – so – I dunno – so-so.
Everytime they remake a childhood memory, they get it all wrong. Very very wrong. The campiness of those Marty Croft live/costumed shows and the over-sugared high of the third bowl of marshmallowed Ka-BOOM or BooBerry cereals while laying on the floor in your footie pajamas next to your brother just can't be reproduced. That's part of the charm of my memories of those kind of shows. The shows weren't all that good, but the part of being a child and seeing flying pylons and dinosaurs chasing hairy children with oversized teeth just can't be remade. Especially not by Will Ferrel.
Or, as my daughter says, "All of those good shows get replaced by crap."
No kidding! That Hugh… WOW. Have you heard him sing? Sing and dance and host and act and married to the same woman for 12 years (don't know if that's exactly right, but the point remains the same) who adores his adopted kids? For me, there aren't too many manly men actors out there nowadays, Hugh is one of them.
Liev Schreiber is an excellent actor in my opinion, but that still doesn't make me want to see Wolverine. I only saw the first X-Men movie and honestly that's was one (well maybe 3/4) too many.
My guess would be 3 minutes. I figure they'll start with some sort of establishing shot, people bustling around on the street, with the credits, and then he'll be introduced coming out of the bathroom or something getting dressed. Seems to be the trend in his movies.
Kris Kristofferson maybe?
I wish I could say that's crazytalk, but unfortunately you're probably right.
G.I. Joe has me afraid actually, very afraid. I can almost smell the funeral pyre of my childhood memories from here, and it isn't even out yet.
Sheeeeyuck…good heavens. Now I must wash my brain.
I think I'll stick with Jackman.
I agree with you 100% on this one. And Sleestaks still creep me out to this day.
I think the Satanic Verses is the logical next film in this genre.
I was never much of a Star Trek fan myself (except for the Wrath of Khan of course) but when I first started hearing about the reboot I thought that maybe I'd go see it. When I saw that Simon Pegg was going to be Scotty, I really wanted to see it…then I saw the trailers and teasers and now I've decided that shelling out the money to just see Scotty isn't worth it. I'm no Trekkie by any means but even I know that how they seem to be characterizing Kirk is way off base, add in some farm animal jokes and flinging a Corvette off a cliff, and now I'm to the point where I'm not even sure I'll rent it. Unless of course it gets rave reviews on BH here, but they best be really, really rave by gum!
As for the other ones, no interest at all, except of course to state again that sometimes I think there is a conspiracy out there to dig up all of the things I liked from my childhood, and remake them poorly just to irk me. Now some of the new-old stuff is good, I liked Battlestar Galactica, Ironman, and the rebooted Batman movies, but for the most part it just irks me. Although I do have to admit if they rebooted Buck Rogers, complete with the disco, I would probably at least get a chuckle out of it.
I'm a Jackman fan too. I even have a soft spot for Kate and Leopold which I watched because we made the mistake of letting my mom pick out the video rental one night. I do agree he's not the best in these straight up actioney things because he has a veneer of the aristocratic that he can't really shake, but I think he's quite good in romantic comedies and period movies and things like that. (although I did also enjoy him as Wolverine, at least in the first one, but then, I've never read the comics).
I'm a Jackman fan too. I even have a soft spot for Kate and Leopold which I watched because we made the mistake of letting my mom pick out the video rental one night. I do agree he's not the best in these straight up actioney things because he has a veneer of the aristocratic that he can't really shake, but I think he's quite good in romantic comedies and period movies and things like that. (although I did also enjoy him as Wolverine, at least in the first one, but then, I've never read the comics).
A few years ago I was thinking Robert DeNiro for Wolverine. If I was directing I'd want him to portray wolverine as a lot more dangerous, like a barely controlled animal trying to be a hero through sheer willpower.
I actually liked Kate and Leopold too, and I had a similar story to how I saw it. I was home to visit and my mom thought it'd be fun to go rent some movies, without me. But in that case I couldn't really fault her choice.
I'm still trying to get over Spiderman's biological web………..
Wolverine,Sir, X-men 1 was very good. It was better than Dark Knight. I speak from a comic geek's perspective, but Bryan Singer did a marvelous job with the material, about as good as could be reasonably expected, or perhaps even better. Its true that 2 dropped off due to lack of character development, and 3 went down even further.I look forward to Wolverine.Trek,Well, we're going to go see it in the theatre the Ladyfaire says. I hope it works out. Some Treks are kinda cool, some are horrible. Perhaps if I go in with low expectations I'll be pleased greatly.Land of the Lost,I didn't watch it as a kid. I will say that Farrell is okay if he's got a good movie. However, John Candy is far better than he is, and its a sign of the comedic dark ages we live in that Farrell is our #1 Comedy Guy. I hope to watch this on DVD and see if its okay for the kids.
I think it's a catchy tune, don't you?
"GI Joooooooeee,
a real Brussels-based heroooooo
GI Jooooooeee…!!""
Oh, all right – so they're going to be based in "The Pits" or whatever it's called. I was never into the '80s animated series. Or The X-Men (I'm a DC girl myself).
But the closer we get to May 8th, the more excited I am for "Star Trek." It's been years since the Enterprise has been on the big screen. And don't think I'm a fair-weathered fan: I'm too nerdy for my kids. I don't want to like it, but the trailer gives me tingles up my leg – just like Obama does for Chris Matthews!
I don't have a problem with McConnaughey taking off his shirt. It's that part where he opens his mouth and words fall out. That being said, I did like Lone Star and Dazed and Confused.
Land of the Lost was a show I loved as a child and now Will Ferrell sees fit to disgrace it. His popularity is an utter mystery to me.
Star Trek is the only movie on this list I have the slightest interest in seeing. God, I hope they don't botch it. Tom Hanks being compared to James Stewart!? In your dreams, Tom.
Some geek I am, I guess, but I never got into Spiderman. I thought he eventually got a biological web through some sort of mutation, er sumthin'. That happened after I was long gone from geekdom.
I'm fine with scorning Hanks, Ferrell, McConaughey and whoever is in that trashy looking soap opera of a Star Trek Movie but dissing Wolverine? That's just not cool.
Granted, I've watched the cartoons far more than I've read the comic books so I'm hardly an X-men groupie but I love Jackman and I loved X-Men & X-2. Just because their awesomeness has been superseded by the wonders that are Batman & Ironman doesn't mean they're forgettable. That's like complaining about Bing Crosby's dancing because Astaire did it better afterwards!
I will also be watching GI Joe when it comes out. PC-ish or not, it's still Dennis Quaid & a bunch of American's kicking butt.
BTW, you skipped the new Transformers movie. Does that mean it landed on the 'maybe' list?
As Cha-Ka would say, "Me tobi ye! Wesasa! Ayoo, Sarisatakani nichichi."
(Yeah, there's a Pakuni dictionary online.)
A Pakuni online dictionary? I don't know if that's the coolest, or craziest thing I've ever heard. I'm leaning towards the cool though.
Not to mention the arms dealer is going to be Destro the guy in the comic who was…an arms dealer. I dont quite see the political correctness in it all but maybe its just me. And for what its worth Cobra is considered a terrorist organization.
I'm more of a lapsed Trekkie than you are John, I guess. I used to go to Star Trek shows and had the Enterprise blueprints and all that stuff back in the day, (No spock ears or Klingon dictionary. Not THAT involved)
But the new stuff with its dull scripts and PC content really bored me over the years (even though I watched everything that came out including Enterprise). This movie looks interesting to me because:
1. It seems to restore a sense of wonder to the show that was missing in almost all of the new shows. Yeah, Picard would act all big eyed at the thought of the mysteries of space. But that show never made me feel it.
2. It has an energy missing from the new shows which are mostly procedural and lackadaisical, even rote at times.
3. It seems to have a sense of urgency to it that was attempted, but failed in a lot of new trek stuff.
4. It doesn't have the kind of fake aliens of the new trek shows (ridges and bumps on actor's faces). It has honest to goodness freaky looking aliens like sci-fi should (the old trek attempted that with their small budgets, yet the new shows barely tried with CGI at their disposal.
5. It doesn't seem to be making the "me first" stupid revisionism crap that Enterprise did. From what I have read, they try to stay within the canon except for a few things like Kirk's father and so on.
As for the metrosexual thing, I don't get that at all. They just look young, which is what they are. What they're supposed to be in this time frame. If you look at TOS Shatner looked mighty fresh faced., He was only 30 in the beginning.
So I am going into this with more hope that it might be good. But I'm not expecting greatness or anything. Just hope it's entertaining.
Me likee!!!
http://personal.linkline.com/enik1138/html/pakuni...
I'm thinking pretty cool, too!
Ronnie doesn't have the cojones (or the hair) to attack a religion whose adherents might relieve his neck of a swollen head (to quote Grishnakh LOR, TT). He will continue to fearlessly confront shadowy forces that don't actually fight back.
You and me both.
Indeed, plus that would assume that someone could even get all the way through the book without shooting themselves in the face to go on to write the screenplay.
"There’s something odd about the look of the film, as well — I mean other than the overwhelming metrosexuality of it all."
(With lisp) Now listen here, Kahn. You better straighten up or I'll give you SUCH a hit!
I have my apprehensions about the G.I. Joe film, too, but the team is not located in Brussels. The studio said the Pit would be like it was in the Marvel comics series, which I think was under Fort Wadsworth in Staten Island.
And Destro isn't a "gun-dealer". He makes high-tech arms and distributes them to terrorists.
I think I could write Nolte's review right now.
I take issue with calling Hugh Jackman a tv level actor. The man has the look and attitude of an old fashioned movie star, the type you dont' see anymore, at least not if they're American. He can act, sing, and dance which makes him a bonafide triple threat. And if you haven't noticed he goes the extra mile for a role. Just look at how ripped he is in Wolverine not to mention how berserk he gets. He just deserves better scripts and heres hoping he gets one that lets him stand out. Maybe Christopher Nolan will work with him again. "The Prestige" gets better every time I see it.
AND he just did a stunt to raise money for the military!
http://www.weather.com/multimedia/videoplayer.htm...
I agree. I thought he did a terrific job in Oklahoma. As far as movies go, if the script is substandard, there is not a whole lot any actor can do.
John, John…what will it take for you to accept Hugh Jackman is a talented dude? I think you just have it out for him. I'll see Wolverine if only to see how they work in X-Men Mythos from years past. (Yes, longtime fan) And I'll see Trek for the same reason. All early reviews seem to indicate it's great, and the cast & crew even did a special screening for the troops! And for the umpteenth time, everyone looks very young because THE CHARACTERS ARE YOUNG. It's the "origin" movie. I saw the trailer for "Ghosts," and it looks absolutely wretched, as does "Land of The Lost." I can also happily skip G.I. Joe as is looks dumb and isn't a childhood touchstone for me, and…well…"Angels and Demons" was a thumping good read and I like seeing big expensive flicks.
Is that the Rescue Me truther marrying Jennifer Garner
in that headline pic? If so, THAT'S reason enough to trash the movie right there!
We have to import our real men from Australia now. Jackman is essential to American cinema.
Otherwise, we're stuck with the aforementioned metrosexuals of Trek, elfish he-men like Orlando Bloom and Leonardo DiCaprio and, of course, self-doubters like Tim Robbins.
Agreed. Nightcrawler's attack on the White House at the beginning of X2 is one of the cooler opening scenes of a movie I've ever seen, but that could partially have something to do with me being a big Nightcrawler fan. They really captured the way he fights while teleporting well. He totally ripped through all those armed Secret Service guys like it was a stroll in the park.
The third one was a pretty big letdown though. Yeah, it was cool to see some of my other faves (Angel, iced out Iceman) have a big screen presence, but that movie was like mutant overload, with no time to properly develop most of the characters on screen. So while they looked cool, that was about it. No connection to the character beyond that.
What the hell is wrong with you? The only one on this list that is going to suck is the girlfriend ghost story. Just enjoy a summer movie, you turd!
Having watched the leaked workprint (no apologies … not only did I search out the torrent on purpose, I seeded it for several days until I got a nice 3.0 ratio … I'm not a freakin' leech!) It was better than X3 (not saying much) and I actually enjoyed it more than X2 or even the first one because it wasn't full of a much PC BS (lets face it the entire X-Men concept is 95% PC BS).
Liev Schreiber is excellent in it. The story is actually pretty good too … even with all the PC and comic book cliches. My biggest complaint was how they handled Deadpool … sorry he's just way too powerful for anyone to control … and he looked goofy, and was cast all wrong.
I fully expect the leaked workprint will actually be better than the theatrical release … roughed in CGI and other polish notwithstanding.
Thirding the Sleestaks freak-out to this day. Insert shudder here… The best Land of the Lost material's already been used by Ferrell, too (or Kevin Smith as it was), with his character Marshall Willenholly in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back. Yup, staying away from that one.
Wolverine, though? Friends and family have already been warned I may or may not be answering the phone that opening weekend. Fan of all three X-Men installments (#2 being a kick-ass action/hero movie) and can't imagine anyone else playing Wolverine. Jackman nails it, the aforementioned "Every time" line the capo di capo.
I dunno. Star Trek has Karl Urban doing the best McCoy since…well, DeForest Kelly and Bruce Greenwood….that's kinda something.
"Z-Men"? Never saw it in the past – no reason to now.
"Ghost?" McConaughy has had one face too many – I couldn't recognize him in that shot. But – I like Garner. So the film's a maybe.
"Melrose Trek" – Any film with high schoolers dressed in their parents' old Trek outfits is a bust.
"Angels and Demons" – Just because Hollywood, Howard and (H)akiva Goldsman hate Christ doesn't mean I have to. I'm not seeing it.
"Land of the Lost" lost me when it put Ferrell in it. Why should I pay money to see a guy who can't stand me? Or anyone.
"GI Joe" – When I figure out what the hell it's supposed to be about, than I'll see it. Until then, nope.
Who else but Hollywood could have taken a great comic like x-men and turned it into a boring, visually bland piece of crud full of miscast actors?
Hollywood – alchemy in reverse.
I also like Jackman. He can act. Most of his movies have been silly, granted (Australia, Van Helsing, etc) he was good in The Prestige. I think he's capable of being a Clint Eastwood type actor, he's not over the top. He's more low key. But he can do comedy and music if he needs to. More than Eastwood could handle from what I have seen (Paint you Wagon). Not that I am comparing them exactly. But Eastwood was a joke to the critics for many years until he started directing more meaningful films and then they started taking him seriously. But he was always good. I think Jackman just needs more time for people to realize he's not just a pretty face.
Jennifer Gardner married Ben Affleck a few years agio.
I predict GI Joe is going to bomb like a B-29 over Ploesti, but we'll see. The market for anything gung-ho about the military is on the conservative side, definitely, and I doubt they're going to be enthused about UN Joe.
I figure the next Sid & Marty Krofft remake will be a CGI version of "Lidsville"…with Rip Taylor as Hoodoo.
I don't go to movies anymore.I do buy DVD's.If the Trek movies blows I'll just ignore it,never see it and forget about it.My nephew might like GIJOE but is too young for Wolverine.
Agreed. X-Men 2 really was nearly (probably) a great film, but X-Men 3 threw all that potential by the wayside. This new one seems like more of the same. It even has the same paltry runtime.
How is over a billions bucks worldwide alchemy in reverse? It's a business. The movies made a tidy profit and a worldwide star out of Hugh, and introduced Marvel's merry mutants to the mainstream. The 3rd was a bit weak, but overall I've enjoyed the series. (And c'mon–Kelsey Grammer was perfect as the Beast!)
Five others that look quite skippable:
Year One – I love the thing ya used to do Harold Ramis, but prehistoric Jack Black mugging…
The Proposal – Okay, Ryan Reynolds isn't as annoying as Matt M., but he's close.
G-Force – Those animal voices are just so Wacky! Poor Will Arnett
The Orphan – What does Hollywood have against adoption? (Oh yeah, that's not an acceptable choice)
The Girlfriend Experience – You are so cutting edge Stevie S.! High price call girls, we need to know so much more about them and their relationships.
Please, Nolte. JJ Abrams has made Trek approachable to a mass audience. Plus, Paramount gave him mucho dollars to make the Trek sets look like movie sets for once, not TV sets on the Big Screen. From every indication, this looks to be nonstop summer popcorn action. Methinks Paramount will make its money back in a big way.
And, no Fat Shat, no toupee! Promise!
Have to disagree on Hugh Jackman. He´s alright
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQL870vTs2M
I like Liev Schreiber. His turn in CSI was fascinating, and would have made a great replacement for Gil Grissom. Too bad they killed his character off before they found out William Petersen was leaving!
We're aware of that unfortunate fact, non-spellchecker; I was referring to the movie I'm sure no one will see (hey I can dream, can't I?)…
We're aware of that unfortunate fact, non-spellchecker; I was referring to the movie I'm sure no one will see (hey I can dream, can't I?)…
Imagine That (Eddie Murphy's latest family crap-fest) HAS to be the most dreaded for this summer, just like Meet Dave was among the last summers t*rd-bombs…
Balderdash! What a jejeune statement, with absolutely no supporting evidence. To the contrary, Hugh Jackman is more multi-talented than most other big-deal movie stars working today. You and Mr. Nolte obviously never saw two of the best performances of 2006: Jackman's turns in THE FOUNTAIN (woefully underappreciated; he was touching and brilliant in three roles) and THE PRESTIGE (another gem that got a little but not enough attention). Do you know of any other film star who could sell out a legitimate theater night after night for a year, never missing a performance? And win a Tony award as an amazing triple threat, to boot? If that's a "television-level talent," then TV has come a loooong way, baby.
But can you really replace crap with crap. Sorry, but the original Land of the Lost was crap.
HR PufnStuf would likely be first. But you know Hollywood would get it all wrong, too. Cast Susan Sarandan as Witchiepooh, and Ashton Kutcher and Leonardo DiCaprio as Cling and Clang and 50Cent as Freddie the Singing Flute. You just know that's how it would go.
Actually, Orlando Bloom is British, but point taken. . .
Sorry but John lost me when he said he like Che.
Yes the X-men Franchise was not what it should have been, but it made hollywood take notice of the money they could make. Otherwise we wouldn't have Iron Man, Watchmen and The Current Hulk as how to make movies, you copy the comic book. G.I.Joe is doing what dooms all comics transferred to movies, rewriting the comic to make it what they "think" we want to see. If it strays too far it will fail.
Star Trek will succeed simply for the new take on the old series and the special effects. Sorry but the old series was on it's last leg and about to flat line out. Just be happy Lucas or Speilberg didn't get their hands on it.
The rest of the movies are nothing but filler and will not gain any of my hard earned money.
take a trip over to Harry Knowles' Aint It Cool…response to Star Trek and Land Of The Lost have been very very positive. Star Trek appears to be a homerun, while Land Of The Lost is a trippy farce for adults laden with showtunes; it is what the first drafts of Anchorman promised to be. A fellow geek saw the "Roger Friedman" version of Wolverine. He gave his approval. Stay classy, FURLEY OUT!
About you list of films you're dreading, Mr. Nolte:
1) Hear hear on both Wolverine & Ghosts of Girlfriends Past. The X-Men series has never appealed to me. Only comic book series I'm still hooked on are Iron Man, Spider-Man & Batman.
2) Everything about this revamping of Star Trek is just plain wrong, especially Captain Kirk.
3) My sister saw The DaVinci Code and felt the same way: very boring.
4) I found Kicking And Screaming & Elf to be very funny. In neither case did I feel Will Ferrell overstayed his welcome.
5) Stephen Sommers did make one watchable film after The Mummy: Van Helsing.
6) I'm willing to watch GI JOE despite the misgivings. This one might win me over; who knows? The rest of the films mentioned here, I don't want to see.
You must be logged in to post a comment.