The problem is that the story is wafer thin and not at all engaging. The other problems are that none of the relationships work, Alice has no character development (she enters and exits Wonderland an annoying feminist), and other than Helena Bonham Carter’s Red Queen, not a single character is in the least interesting. About halfway the movie that old “Transformers 2″ feeling crept over me. The one that says, “This is like watching someone else play a video game.”

I never make box-office predictions. Sometimes, not even in my head. Over the years I’ve just been so wrong so often that it’s become a waste of brainpower. For instance, after suffering through the overwhelming punishment that was “Transformers 2,” I was sure it would tank in its second week. Who could recommend such an ordeal? Well, just about everyone. It went on to gross over $800 million worldwide.

Has something changed?

For a couple of decades now Hollywood’s tried to slip one past its customers and get ahead of word-of-mouth by spending tens of millions of dollars on advertising to gin up anticipation before dumping the film on a few thousand screens on opening weekend. This front-loading allows the studios to scoop up a ton of cash by packing in we suckers based on our excitement as opposed to what we’ve might have heard from friends and neighbors. You can’t blame the studios for that. But…

If the movie sucks, what’s supposed to occur is a dramatic second-week box office drop-off, and lately that’s not happening as often as it should.

Story-less junk like “Alice in Wonderland,” “Transformers 2,” “Alvin and the Chipmunks 2,”and “Avatar” just keep chugging right along as though they don’t suck. Which is troubling. Hollywood watches movie-going trends and if I’m spotting this, you can bet they are. And what are audiences saying?

They’re saying 3D spectacle is good enough and that there’s no need for filmmakers to put any serious time into producing a smart story, interesting characters, or sharp dialogue.

Dear Hollywood,

Just put a lot of cool, colorful shit on a huge screen for a couple  hours and we will come.

Hugs & Kisses,
Your Audience

Hopefully, this is nothing more than a fad that will soon pass. Hopefully, before too many “great looking” but poorly scripted movies are past the point of no return in the production pipeline, audiences will tire of the fad, reject a few of these and wake the industry up.

At least that’s what we should be holding on to.  The alternative — the idea that movies could now make money delivering only visual spectacle and nothing else is too depressing to seriously consider.

At the end of December 2009, Yahoo compiled a list of the top grossing movies of the year domestically. (Because the list came out in December, “Transformers 2” is featured as the highest grossing movie of the year, rather than “Avatar.”) The Yahoo list featured four sequels, one franchise revival (“Star Trek”), and one James Cameron movie about a planet with blue aliens on it. That latter film, along with “Transformers 2,” will not likely be remembered for its story or its characters, a disappointing realization for moviegoers who want great stories to go along with grand special effects.

“Avatar” may be beloved by some movie critics but few could argue that the story of that movie and its cliched characters and plot are as great as its visual effects. “Transformers 2,”on the other hand, had some good visual effects but its story was boring and many critics hated it, for good reason. It was a really bad film.

Compare those two films to the top two films of 2008: “The Dark Knight” and “Iron Man.” At the end of 2008, Yahoo compiled a list of the top ten movies of that year with “The Dark Knight” emerging as the top domestic motion picture of the year. The two top-grossing movies in the United States in 2008 and 2009 all feature a lot of special effects. However, one of the main differences between the top two movies of 2008 and 2009 are the stories (or lack thereof).

Both “Iron Man” and “The Dark Knight” had good stories to go along with their special effects. “Iron Man” was about an unlikely superhero with a lot of personality who made himself into a hero after being held hostage. “The Dark Knight” was about the Caped Crusader fighting against a monstrous villain, played by Academy Award winner Heath Ledger. Both of those films had special effects but those were used to supplement their strong stories, rather than replace them. Along with the special effects, “Iron Man” received recognition for its appealing story and Robert Downey Jr.’s performance in it. Likewise, “The Dark Knight” was known for its great story and Ledger’s grand performance in it.

This is not to say that all of 2009 highest-grossing films lacked good stories. Although I have not seen “Ice Age 3” or “Twilight: New Moon,” I do know that a lot of the top grossing movies on the Yahoo list for 2009 had far better stories than the disappointing “Avatar” or “Transformers 2.” “The Blind Side” had an inspiring story about a family that takes care of a complete stranger and helps him succeed both in sports and in his life.  “The Hangover” had a fun story about a group of guys who wake up in Vegas and then try to figure out what transpired the night before. Lastly, “Up” had a fantastic storyline about a man trying to make up for lost opportunities in life by moving his house to his and his wife’s dream vacation spot.

Each of those movies had good stories and strong characters going for them. “Avatar” and “Transformers 2” did not.

It is no surprise that bad movies ended up of the top ten list of the highest-grossing movies of 2009. Look at “Hancock” as one of the higest grossing movies of 2008. That was an awful movie that did well at the box office. However, 2009 was a year when movies with great special effects proved that they can seriously overcome far better entertainment with stronger stories and better characters.

It is still too early in 2010 to determine if people at the box office are going to prefer mindless entertainment like “Transformers 2,” bad storylines accompanied by great special effects like in “Avatar” or movies that have great stories, strong performances and grand special effects like “The Dark Knight.” I am definitely hoping for the latter as sitting through another movie like  “Transformers 2” sounds like a terrible way to spend part of the new year.

What’s frustrating about watching an extremely satisfying B-level horror film like “Daybreakers” is that you wonder why every movie can’t have as simple and effective a story. Here you have this little grinder dumped in theatres during the dog days of January starring a few respected names (Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe, Sam Neill) but no big stars, and yet it manages to tell its story with more lean, mean and steam than monster hits like “Transformers 2” (which sucked) and “Sherlock Holmes” (which didn’t). When did watching a simple, easy to follow, well-paced story unfold on the big screen become the exception?

“Simple” doesn’t mean dumb, either — or clichéd. It means simple; it means you’re able to repeat the story to someone else in under a minute. Go ahead and try to tell someone the story of “Sherlock Holmes.”  You can’t. It’s too convoluted. The director couldn’t tell you the story. The best he could do is try and explain it. Anyone who’s done any serious amount of screenwriting will tell you that nothing’s harder than simplicity, and yet for all the many millions our top screenwriters make, somewhere along the line…  

What I meant say was, “Daybreakers” is my kind of movie, and not just because there’s all kinds of senseless violence and vampires — though one or the other is usually enough.

In their second feature film, the writer/director team made up of the brothers Spierig have brought to vivid cinematic life an intriguing world packed with fascinating detail set ten years in the future where vampires have taken over and we mere mortals (those who clung to their humanity and refused to transform) are hunted down and housed in Matrix-like human blood farms to feed the children of the night. There’s just one problem: Too many vampires, not enough humans. The blood supply is quickly running out.

Blood is the currency of this transformed realm and those who can afford it live the life of the elite and those who can’t panhandle until starvation eventually turns them into a sickly, grotesque bat-like monster prior to their demise. This society runs just fine when it’s the lower classes starving to death, but within the next thirty days the middle class will feel hunger pangs and then everything breaks down.

Our hero is Edward (Hawke), a top-tier hematologist and reluctant vampire morally opposed to the exploitation of humans, even though he works for the world’s single central blood farm and its profit-hungry chairman Charles Bromley (Neill). With the food supply running out, Edward and Bromley have a shared interest in creating a blood substitute that won’t make someone’s head explode (don’t ask). Unfortunately for Edward, the elite will always prefer the real thing and deep down he knows his substitute might satisfy the workaday vamps, but the foo-foo will always have their human farms.

What’s needed is a cure for vampirism itself and this might be found in a band of rebels led by Elvis (Dafoe), a Southern boy who oozes masculine flamboyance and drives a tricked out Mustang, and the beautiful but tough Audrey (remember: a rebel group without a tough babe who looks great in a halter top is not a rebel group), played by Claudia Karvan.

As with all good horror films there’s plenty of social statement in the subtext but unlike the morally illiterate James Cameron, the Spierig Brothers paint in the kind of generalities that leave the interpretation up to you. What I personally saw was Leftist Hollywood’s vision for the world come true: Everything’s centralized and the most selfish people on the planet have forsaken their souls to realize their dream of staying forever young as they feed off others while the rest of us starve, until…  A Southern redneck who drives a gas-guzzler and carries unregistered weapons comes along with a can of whup-ass.

But that’s just me.

“Daybreakers” is rated R and proud of it. Violence, action, gore, no shaky-cam, and one hellaciously awesome car chase that makes buying the DVD mandatory. Yes, the story is simple, but also smart. The details of this world are complex and fascinating, the pacing superb, the wrap-up satisfying, and there’s even a little humor.  

Is it a perfect genre flick? Not quite. No nudity.

Doesn’t beef cause Global Warming?

Big Hollywood reviews below the fold:

REVIEW: Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Is a Big, Dull, America-Hating, PC Revenge Fantasy

‘Dances With Wolves’ In Space: Cameron’s ‘Avatar’ Gets Visuals Right, Everything Else Wrong

The actress tells The New York Times that her movie “Jennifer’s Body” tanked because “the movie is about a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader, and that pretty much eliminates middle America.”

Actually, Megan, that pretty much eliminates anyone with an ounce of taste. Here’s more on the movie’s plot via IMDB:

Nerdy, reserved bookworm Needy and arrogant, conceited cheerleader Jennifer are best friends, though they share little in common. They share even less in common when Jennifer mysteriously gains an appetite for human blood after a disastrous fire at a local bar. As Needy’s male classmates are steadily killed off in gruesome attacks, the young girl must uncover the truth behind her friend’s transformation and find a way to stop the bloodthirsty rampage before it reaches her own boyfriend Chip.

Oh my stars! This has Oscar and Golden Globe written all over it, and Middle American schlubs who shop at Walmart and enjoy a night out at Applebee’s couldn’t appreciate the delicate nuances of a man-eating, cannibalistic lesbian cheerleader? Well, that’s the hoi polloi for you.

A decent movie must have meat. Unfortunately in this one, it looks like Megan Fox ate it all.

I guess it didn’t occur to Megan, though, that gratuitously badmouthing many of the people who make your career possible isn’t exactly the best way to win fans apart from hormonally-charged young men. Here’s what she said about those same losers back in June, whilst Americans were breathlessly awaiting the cinematic triumph that rivaled “Gone with the Wind” called “Transformers 2″:

When asked how she would stop the ruthless Megatron from demolishing the world, Fox first said that she would “barter with him.” She then, however, went on to say, “… and instead of the entire planet, can you just take out all of the white trash, hillbilly, anti-gay, super bible-beating people in Middle America?”

Yep, there’s nothing like talking smack about a large portion of the movie-going audience, who work hard for the money that goes toward those $10 movie tickets. Remember, “artists” like Megan exist on a much higher plane than you and me, so they don’t have to worry about things like getting “value for your money” and can therefore spend a lot of time belittling the social mores of the very communities from whence most of them came. Burn those bridges, baby!

She must not brag too much about being born and raised in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Sounds a bit too “down home,” if you know what I mean. The poor dear attended a Christian high school and at the ripe old age of 15 was not yet a feminist! Thankfully she escaped that horrible place and went to Hollywood, where being a celebrity means you can do anything you want as long as the words “moral” or “tasteful” aren’t attached to it.

In her rant about “Jennifer’s Body,” Fox also takes a swipe at all the jealous females out there:

And other women hate her because “women tear each other apart. Girls think I’m a slut, and I’ve been in the same relationship since I was 18. The problem is, if they think you’re attractive, you’re either stupid or a whore or a dumb whore. The instinct among girls is to attack the jugular.”

I agree that there is a tendency for women to “attack the jugular,” as Fox puts it, when they are feeling envious or threatened. (Sarah Palin might have a word or two to say about that.) However, an actress of Fox’s caliber can rest assured that most of the criticism leveled at her has less to do with her looks and more to do with her severe limitations as an actress. Meryl Streep she ain’t.

I wonder why she is worried about being labeled a slut, considering her own take on women in Hollywood:

ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY: You’ve only done a couple of movies, so you’re still mostly known as a sex symbol rather than an actress.

MEGAN FOX: It doesn’t bother me. I don’t know why someone would complain about that. That just means that the bar has been set pretty low. People don’t expect me to do anything that’s worth watching. So I can only be an overachiever. I think all women in Hollywood are known as sex symbols. That’s what our purpose is in this business. You’re merchandised, you’re a product. You’re sold and it’s based on sex. But that’s okay. I think women should be empowered by that, not degraded.

So if other women think you’re a slut, Megan, remember: you should feel empowered, not degraded or insulted, by the label.

Reviews on “Jennifer’s Body” linked over at Rotten Tomatoes were mixed. Here’s part of one that caught my eye:

Jennifer is dead-eyed and impassive, but a good actress might yet have played her in a lively, knowing way. Fox’s dead-eyed impassiveness seems all too much her own.

Sorry, Megan, that wasn’t written by a Middle American or a woman, but a Brit named Edward Porter. Will the inhabitants of the UK be next on your list of people to insult?

But what do I know? As a female who isn’t a particular fan, it’s obviously because I’m jealous of her fabulous body and big-time Hollywood career. I must be one of those know-nothing Middle Americans.

See you at Applebee’s.

He was so excited (agitated?) when he got back that he asked if he could make a video of his impressions of “Transformers 2″ and post it on Big Hollywood. “I don’t know, Tío, that movie’s been out for a couple of weeks now, Big Hollywood is a blog, it’s all about what’s happening right now.” Tío Chano assured me that he’d find a way to make it current. So I relented. Why not? I hadn’t planned on posting anything this week anyway. So, here he is, my Tío Chano. Oh, and by the way: Spoiler alert!

Directed by Cyrus Nowrasteh (The Path to 9/11) and written by Nowrasteh and his wife Besy Giffen-Nowrasteh, Soraya is based on the 1995 non-fiction book of the same name by Freidoune Sahebjam. Soraya takes place after the Islamic revolution in Iran and centers around Soraya (played by Mozhan Marnò), a woman whose husband, Ali (played by Navid Negahban), has tired of her after 20 years of marriage and wishes to discard her for a younger woman. Actually, “younger” is an understatement, as Ali lusts after a 14-year-old girl. Soraya knows about Ali’s plans, but won’t agree to a divorce because she knows she will be unable to provide for her two young daughters (the two sons will stay with Ali, of course). Ali must then come up with another scheme for getting rid of his uncooperative wife, and he uses guile, cunning and good old-fashioned blackmail to get the key players in place for what is passed off as a religious cleansing rite.

Intricately involved in the plan to rid Ali of his wife are the Mullah (played by Ali Pourtash), Ebrahim, the Mayor (played by David Diaan), and Hashem, the village mechanic (played by Parviz Sayyad). When writing the script, the Nowrastehs stayed true to the real-life characters, but felt they needed to add shading to the characters of the men in order to more broadly reflect how different people react under extreme peer pressure and mob rule. “Frankly, we humanized many of the male characters to show their inner conflicts and dilemmas, whereas in the book they are all evil to the core,” said Cyrus. Each of these men has a reason for his complicity, and while some of their reasoning is almost understandable, it doesn’t make it any easier to accept. In fact, the entire village is swept up in this religious fervor, and the relish with which the village men (and even some of the women) take part in the repulsively violent proceedings is truly a window on the failings of mankind.

Because you know going in what will happen – Soraya is killed in a brutal “religious” stoning ritual on charges of adultery – much of the drama is in what takes place beforehand: seeing how the beautiful, kind, caring Soraya is set up for a fall from which there is no getting up. Her aunt Zahra (played by Shohreh Aghdashlooo) sees what is happening. although she doesn’t know specifics, she warns Soraya that some kind of plot is afoot, but Soraya refuses to believe that anyone would go to such trouble on her account. When she realizes, too late, what is happening, Soraya says, “So he’s finally done it. He’s gotten rid of me.” And she knows she is trapped: there is no escape.

Soraya is at her happiest when she is with her young daughters, and her greatest concern after discovering her own fate is what will happen to them. The tender scene where she says goodbye to them is in stark contrast to her final words with her sons – one of whom tells the other to “act like a man.”

The Mullah prepares for his part in the stoning as he gets his beard trimmed and, when he arrives at the pit, he has changed into a black robe and is wearing sunglasses – like some kind of medieval pop star. The grandstanding is quite sickening to behold.

The script is riveting and the cinematography is fabulous – the stark beauty of the mountain village underlining the bleak outlook on life for the women who live there. As Ali tells his sons, “This is a man’s world. Never forget that, boys.” In fact, such is the man’s world that Soraya’s elderly father turns against her too. He even gets the honor of casting the first stone.

As for the stoning scene itself (achieved by puppetry, stunt performers and CGI), it’s brutal, cruel and shocking. It’s hard to believe the director toned it down: “I didn’t want to have anyone mistake what they were seeing for standard, popcorn movie violence but I also didn’t want it to be so graphic that it overwhelmed the audience.” Nowrasteh added, “All I can tell you is that compared to what I saw and read [about real stonings], the scene in the movie is far less graphic than it could have been.” Be prepared for real tears, and not just during the stoning scene: I had to work hard to keep myself from breaking down completely. Throughout the film I could hear exclamations of disgust from other viewers (especially when God was invoked as a reason for what was happening), and the man two seats away from me was audibly sniffling.

Much of the importance of this film lies in the real-life bravery of Zahra and her determination to tell the story of what happened to her beloved niece. She not only endangers herself, but also journalist Feidoune Sahebjam (played by Jim Caviezel in a small but pivotal role). Their chance meeting turns into what is arguably the biggest story of his career, but he must dodge the mayor, the Mullah, and a couple of members of the Revolutionary Guard after speaking with Zahra. The question that remains, of course, is that if indeed “Islam” demands it” and “it’s God’s law,” why the attempt to hush it all up?

The cast is first rate, with everyone giving solid performances. Aghdashloo shines as Zahra, the fearless woman who will not rest until she does what she can to tell the world of the cruel injustice visited upon Soraya. Marnò plays Soraya with a haunting grace and underlying strength that, despite having all forces against her, can never truly be vanquished. John Denby’s score provides the proper mood throughout, while the photography and editing are also essential to the telling of the story. Except for the scenes where Zahra is telling Sahebjam her tale in English, the movie is in Farsi with English subtitles, which immerses the viewer in Soraya’s world more completely than would have happened had the movie been in English.

As I left the screening room and walked down 48th Street, I was in a daze. It was a beautiful summer evening in New York City and yet I wondered how I could enjoy it after seeing the stark reality of brutality that continues to exist against women (and some men). I walked by a movie set – not unusual in New York – and wondered about the movie being filmed. Was it a comedy? An action film? I’m not a movie or theater snob; I like fluffy entertainment as much as the next guy. You won’t often hear me saying, “This is an important film,” but I’m saying so now. I certainly don’t expect The Stoning of Soraya M. to outperform Transformers 2 at the box office, but it will haunt those who see it. As difficult as it is to watch, Soraya’s story must be told. If it can save lives, she will not have died in vain.

Due to the film’s graphic nature, I would not recommend it for anyone under 17 (hence the R rating).

Rated R (cruel and brutal violence); 1 hr 56 min

To My Obama-Loving Friends:

Please read on, this is fifteen years of experience talking….

You’re excited. Why wouldn’t you be? It’s summertime, it’s Michael Bay, the trailer’s loaded with explosions and hot chicks and mayhem and by gawd you need this – no… you deserve this. You deserve a couple hours in the dark, in the air conditioning, in a place where you’re lifted from the stresses, worries, and hassles of an all-too real world. 

And dammit, you paid good money for this escape, this drug, this promise of both. Hell, crack is cheaper … and lasts longer (from what I hear). 

The lights dim, the movie starts, and you’re digging it. Sure it’s kinda dumb, but you knew that coming in. But the promise is kept. Mayhem, explosions, crunching metal, political sucker punch. Whoa. Wait…

POLITICAL SUCKER PUNCH? 

Whuh-tha-hell? 

Now imagine waiting for this to happen … All. The. Time. Oh, it may not happen every time, but it happens enough that no matter what television show you watch or movie you pay good money for, you wait for it. That’s right, anything new that comes out of Hollywood cannot be viewed without waiting for it. You’re always on guard and can never completely relax because the insult, the breaking of the spell, the cheap shot, the sucker punch can come at anytime from anywhere… 

If this report is true… 

“In this movie, exactly one real-life politician is named: “President Obama.” They went out of their way to make sure they named the craven, obstructionist president as Obama.” 

…and I’ll know for sure in less than a couple hours, please do get all “So what gives?” over it, and know that you have our sympathy. Kind of.