I don’t have much to say about Paul Schrader’s “First Reformed” that I didn’t say in my rave review for Slashfilm out of TIFF last year. It’s currently sitting atop my best of the year list at the midway point of 2018, and it will take a mighty potent film to dethrone it by December. This is a film with an urgent, powerful message that resonates deeply with a world going mad that is also perfectly wedded to an austere visual style and overall aesthetic. It will be a long time before I shake this movie.
For more of my poetic language about the film, I’ll refer you to the aforementioned article. Here’s a sampling of what I wrote:
We’ve quietly entered a renaissance of master American filmmakers tackling religious subjects with the gravity, dignity and seriousness they deserve. Add Paul Schrader’s latest movie “First Reformed” to a growing list of modern masterpieces on faith through hardship that includes Martin Scorsese’s “Silence,” Terrence Malick’s “The Tree of Life,” the Coen Brothers’ “A Serious Man” and James Gray’s “The Immigrant.”
Schrader’s work stands out in this group, however, as the only one to take place in the present day. “First Reformed” is an essential parable for the Trump era about the role of the church in the most pressing moral and political issues facing our world. Through the tortured consciousness of Ethan Hawke’s Reverend Ernst Toller, a former military chaplain turned custodian of a historical Calvinist church, Schrader explores a country’s moral malaise and the seeming inability of mainline Christianity to mobilize against it.
[…]
“First Reformed” charts Toller’s turbulent internal journey, which heads to dark and disturbing corners of his mind, with an emotional reserve as chilly as the film’s wintry weather. None of this is surprising given Schrader’s well-documented affinity for directors such as Bresson and Dreyer, but the steadiness of this aesthetic rigor helps balance a film daring to ask some thorny questions about how actively religion should participate in the public square – as well as how much they should bring those issues into their churches. And Hawke, both deeply expressive and internal as Toller, adds a human spin on the issues to really drive them home.
Their combined efforts form a powerful challenge to Christians, without derision or condescension, to live up to their stated values and honor their sacred text. At the very least, apathy in the face of flagrant immoral and unjust deeds in the world should be taken off the table for any who take the time to thoughtfully engage with “First Reformed.”
If you mentioned the phrase “my generation” to people my parents’ age (straddling the Baby Boomer/Generation X boundary), they might start humming that hopelessly catchy song by The Who. Ask millennials like myself what those two words signal and a combination groan and eye-roll will likely follow.
By this point, I have learned to take bulk criticism of people my age in stride, though biting my tongue on the gloom-and-doom predictions made about us does bother me quite a bit. So long as there have been independently minded youth, there have been an older vanguard of adults sneering at the perceived ruin brought about by change to the establishment. The lyrics may change over time, yet the melody remains the same.
“While We’re Young,” from writer/director Noah Baumbach, arrives whistling that tired tune fearing the slow-dawning apocalypse of those darned kids these days. What looked like a fascinating examination of intergenerational differences, rivalries, and friendships wound up playing like a cranky old relative or professor erecting a soapbox for themselves to rant about their monolithic conception of millennials.
Whether a running gag about a younger character not offering to pick up a check or Adam Horovitz’s Fletcher ranting about cell phone dependency, Baumbach barely conceals his personal disdain behind the veneer of his fictional creations. His stance seems to imply the twentysomethings of today are uniquely self-involved, duplicitous, and dishonorable. Has he forgotten that the Greatest Generation and the older end of the Baby Boomers said the same things about his cohort? Rather than let his age provide a vantage point of wisdom on the issues he explores, his advanced years appear only to ensconce his bitterness.
According to Seth MacFarlane, there are a million ways to die in the west. Too bad not a one of them could have come to put me out of my misery while watching his dreadful new film. It doesn’t just miss the mark of Western comedic great “Blazing Saddles;” MacFarlane pretty much misfires on laughs altogether.
“A Million Ways to Die in the West” amounts to little more a bloated reel of MacFarlane kvetching about everything in his life. At first, it just seems like a long-winded way of setting up the perilousness of the primitive civilization he intends to mock. Yet after about 10 minutes, it becomes clear that MacFarlane is never going to shut up. The experience becomes akin to being locked in a room with your annoying friend that can only speak in the form of complaints – for nearly two hours.
MacFarlane’s relentless pessimism is so pervasive that it overpowers the rest of the cast. Only Neil Patrick Harris, cleverly employed here as a cocky cuckold with a finely-kept mustache, manages to entertain in the slightest with any wit. Charlize Theron, as MacFarlane’s pseudo-love interest, coasts through the film on autopilot and never really sparks. Amanda Seyfried and Liam Neeson are mentally checked out as well, but they’re playing such familiar roles that it really doesn’t seem quite as egregious.
The concept behind “In Time” is actually fairly interesting, and maybe that’s why I was willing to overlook some of the film’s shortcomings. In a dystopian ultra-classist 2169, people stop aging at 25, and living any longer than that requires you to literally buy time. Extra time seems to come from just one extra strong and special handshake.
Such a kind of transfer begs the question of why people don’t just go steal it from the rich people why they sleep. Or why people don’t just use tight grips or shake with superglue. Needless to say, the broad strokes of inspiration blinded writer/director Andrew Niccol to the many plot holes in this world.
Watching the movie from a post-Occupy world certainly highlights this extreme case of social inequity as the rich live forever and the poor die young. From my sociology classes in college, I can tell you that inequality is corrosive for society and poverty is quite literally a lethal force. “In Time” is very conscious of these things and holds an interesting mirror up to the audience watching the film.
Sadly, that mirror is fogged up by some sloppy storytelling and a plot that ultimately can’t sustain beyond the novelty of the “time as life” concept. The characterization is decent, but the cast of good looking actors who can still pass for 25 – including Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Matt Bomer, and Alex Pettyfer – don’t do much to elevate the material. The intelligence of the social commentary ultimately gives way to a fairly standard action film, but the themes raised in the beginning are enough to make me feel that “In Time” was not entirely wasted time. B- /
“Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent,” wrote Victor Hugo in his novel “Les Misérables.” Though his work has found expression in a number of different mediums since its publication in 1862, none has captured the public’s imagination quite like Claude-Michel Schönberg’s musical. It took the spirit of Hugo’s classic novel and put it on stage to powerful effect with an operatic score and poetic lyrics.
The endearing place “Les Misérables” holds in contemporary musical theatre is due to the supremacy of the music, featuring showstopper after showstopper that tug on the heartstrings and open the floodgates of the tear ducts. I’ll go ahead and declare my lack of objectivity since I was fortunate enough to be a member of a production of “Les Misérables” in high school. Watching the show from the audience is an ethereal experience, but living with that show for several weeks and being a part of conveying that show’s magic to an audience made it a truly spiritual experience for me.
However, theater does have its limitations. Using terminology from cinematic camera proxemics, the audience is locked in perpetual longshot, forced to view the action from a distance. Though the immediacy of the performer is felt, we see only broad strokes of emotion. So for “Les Misérables” on stage, the potency must come across through the notes of the music, putting the emphasis on execution of the orchestra and the voices of the performers.
Yet these complex and well-written roles are a goldmine for actors, offering them chances to explore rich internal worlds and manifest them through beautiful song. On stage, we are overcome by spectacle and score, so much so that we can lose the depth of the characters that build the colossus that is Hugo’s novel. If the stage actor chooses to build in nuances in facial and body movement into their performance, it would be mainly for them alone as most in the auditorium would only be able to discern larger, grander motions.
The fact that movies like “Gone” are allowed to be written, green-lit, financed, filmed, and released is shameful. To call it a trite trifle is to do the flagrance of its unoriginality a disservice; I can think of few worse ways to spend 90 minutes of my life than watching this movie. If this movie didn’t nab Amanda Seyfried, I would expect it to be in the $5 bin at a truck-stop stuffed below a dozen copies of “Pootie Tang.”
A girl goes missing? Her sister (Seyfried) will stop at nothing to find her and the kidnapper? That same sister is just as crazy as the criminal? Please, no-name directors, leave stories like this to masters like Scorsese, who actually did something masterful with a similar plot in “Shutter Island.” For once, I’d like Hollywood to stop belittling the work of true artists by doing half-baked carbon copies that border on outright plagiarism.
Moreover, it’s not just what they are doing that makes me mad, but it’s also how they are doing it. PLEASE do not put a movie before paying audiences if you cannot come up with an ending. Do not cop out and scrap together an open ending if you don’t have the decisiveness or intelligence to devise one. Again, leave that to people with a vision. Do not borrow their techniques to hide your own laziness. C- /
The Italian countryside has got to be the single most beautiful place in the world. Apologies to Amanda Seyfried, but “Letters to Juliet” is a romance (not even comedy) that doesn’t deserve to feature the gorgeous country in its background. Given the quality of the script, the disillusioned lover played by Seyfried should be traversing back alleys to find the long lost love of Claire (the graceful, ageless beauty Vanessa Redgrave).
Shakespeare’s well-known tragedy “Romeo & Juliet” gets a fairy-tale romantic twist here as Sophie (Seyfried) ventures to Verona for her pre-wedding honeymoon with her all-too-occupied fiancé (Gael Garcia Bernal). A journalist, she discovers the secret behind the letters left for the fictional Juliet in the wall of her house. They are answered by the “secretaries of Juliet,” yet one letter manages to stay lodged behind a rock. Sophie takes it upon herself to answer it personally, finding Claire and her well-groomed grandson Charlie (Christopher Egan). Believing her love is still out there, they embark on a journey to find her Romeo.
From then on, all originality goes out the window and formula takes over. Charlie and Sophie have the typical romantic arc: hate turns to not hate, and somehow not hating someone means you are in love! If love in real life was like it is in romantic comedies nowadays, what a depressing world it would be.
Poor Claire for having to put up with their sudden infatuation in denial, and poor Vanessa Redgrave for having her name on this movie. While it’s certainly darling that she got to make a movie that had echoes of her own life, no Academy Award winner deserves to star in something like this. Apart from Redgrave, I struggle to find much good to say about this movie. Italy and Amanda Seyfried look good, perhaps? Or maybe that I would have really liked this movie if it was the first romantic comedy I had ever seen?
As Taylor Swift’s song goes, “It’s a love story, baby just say yes.” When it comes to “Letters for Juliet,” maybe you should say no (unintentionally another Taylor Swift quote). C- /
Thanks again to every LAMB voter who crowned me king of casting AGAIN. I really do appreciate it. Maybe I should go into casting as a career … the other day I recast “The Social Network” using the actors from my school’s acting company. It’s something I sure like to do.
I’ll offer up a brief bit of rationale behind my casting – and who knows, maybe you can steal my crown!
Rachel McAdams was my choice to take over helming the movie from Julia Roberts. She’s a fantastic actress with great comedic talent, plus she looks GORGEOUS. Even if she stunk in the role, I’d forgive her as long as she looked good. She is in the mainstream consciousness, but a huge role like this could propel her to superstardom. I have adored her in movies like “Wedding Crashers” and “The Family Stone,” and I just hope the rest of America could catch up with me – er, her.
I had the hardest time casting Michael, the man of her dreams who happens to be engaged to another girl. I settled on Ryan Reynolds, who has been heating up the rom-com circuit recently and could easily do a pretty good job with this role.
The two biggest no-brainers were the scene-stealing supporting roles of Cammy, Michael’s ditzy fiance, and George, Jules’s gay friend who steps in to make everything more complicated. It was obvious from the get-go that Amanda Seyfried would have to play the part since she has proven herself so great at playing the dumb blonde type (“Mean Girls”) as well as being someone beautiful that an audience can care about (“Mamma Mia”).
And do I even need to explain choosing Neil Patrick Harris as George? He’s one of the funniest people at work in the business and this role was practically made for him. If there’s ever a Broadway version of the movie, he will be instantly cast.
Watch for the next edition of LAMB Casting, when the blogosphere attempts to recast “Forrest Gump!” (My choice. We’ll see how it goes.)
Atom Egoyan’s “Chloe” is no fantasy, but it does ask us to suspend reality a little bit. The movie forces us to believe that normally sweet, innocent Amanda Seyfried can be an obsessive nymphomaniac and normally steadfast, noble Liam Neeson can be a philandering husband.
Take a deep breath. It’s hard to imagine these actors playing so against type, isn’t it? The shock value from seeing them be so bad adds to the overall shock value of the movie, which is one of the few things it has going in its favor. Overall, it’s a fairly predictable movie that still manages to unsettle you thanks to its graphic descriptions of sexual behavior and the psychotic Benjamin Braddock character that is Amanda Seyfried’s Chloe.
Chloe is a master of seduction, using the persuasive power of her good looks to take full control of everyone she comes into contact with. This includes gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Julianne Moore), who has become convinced that her husband (Neeson) is cheating on her. She hires Chloe to test his waters and see how far he will go, but she soon finds out that she is in for way more than she asked. The assignment only proves to feed Chloe’s purely carnal desires, and she will stop at nothing to get what she wants.
The movie is most notable for Seyfried’s turn, which is such a departure from her lighter roles that it will leave you completely awe-struck. She proves that she can do more than just fluff like Nicholas Sparks adaptations and campy ABBA musicals, and I’m sure excited to welcome her into the realm of real acting. Julianne Moore goes through the movie in cruise control, but that’s still enough for one of the finest actresses of our time to be compelling. And then there’s Liam Neeson, who’s hardly in the movie long enough to sully our views of him as such an honorable man.
Really, the movie’s biggest flaw is it’s obsession with shocking us. There comes a certain point when it becomes overkill, and then the audience learns to anticipate it, rendering any power it might have completely useless. So by the end of “Chloe,” when the final twists come into place and Chloe commits her most shocking deeds yet, it really doesn’t mean anything to us. B /
There’s more to March than just the Oscars. Finally, March arrives and we can stop dwelling on 2009. In my opinion, March is usually a pretty decent movie month. This year’s crop looks especially promising with new movies from Tim Burton, Paul Greengrass (“The Bourne Ultimatum”), and Noah Baumbach (“The Squid and the Whale”).
March 5
After almost 3 months, “Avatar” will have to cede those illustrious 3-D and IMAX screens to Tim Burton’s twist on “Alice in Wonderland.” The titular character is played by relative newcomer Mia Wasikowsa, who will look quite a bit older than the Alice you remember from Disney’s 1951 animated classic. If that’s not a big enough draw for you, surely Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter (who will hopefully channel more of his glorious Jack Sparrow than his Jacko-esque Willy Wonka) will suffice. No? How about Helena Bonham Carter as the Queen of Hearts? Or Anne Hathaway as the White Queen? Perhaps Alan Rickman as the Caterpillar? No doubt about it, this is one exciting cast, and I’m sure Tim Burton won’t have any problem distinguishing himself from the numerous “Alice in Wonderland” rip-offs that have sprouted over the past few years.
“Brooklyn’s Finest” is directed by Antoine Fuqua, helmer of “Training Day,” which was enough to get me interested. However, it really looks to be little more than a mash-up of every cop movie ever made. But hey, that may be your thing, which would make this your potpourri.
March 12
I’m excited for “Green Zone,” which looks to be a smart political thriller. See my previous post at the release of the trailer for more info.
On the indie side of things, Noah Baumbach looks to return to Oscar form after “Margot at the Wedding” underwhelmed with “Greenberg.” The movie stars Ben Stiller as Greenberg, the grouchy misanthrope who finds a reason to be pessimistic about everything. However, a special woman comes along and begins to melt his heart. I’m looking forward to a double-edged performance from Stiller, one that can show off his dramatic chops but also give us plenty of hearty laughs.
Seth Rogen’s four roommates in “Knocked Up” were equally as funny as he was. Each of them have slowly gotten their “moment”: Jonah Hill in “Superbad,” Jason Segel in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall.” Now, it could be Jay Baruchel’s turn. “She’s Out of My League” pits him similar situation: the uncomely guy getting the smoking hot babe. Hopefully Paramount gives this the push it deserves, maybe making Baruchel a breakout comedic star of 2010.
Could “Remember Me” get Robert Pattinson the Razzie for Worst Actor? After narrowly missing the cut for his two performances as Edward Cullen, this could finally be the one to get him the kind of awards attention he deserves.
Forest Whitaker is an Academy Award winning actor. What on earth is he doing in “Our Family Wedding?” For that matter, America Ferrera has won SAG and Golden Globe awards, and Carlos Mencia was once actually funny! This looks not only insufferable but almost racist. Plus, didn’t I see this movie in 2005 when it was called “Guess Who?”
“Jennifer’s Body” may be from the Academy Award-winning screenwriter Diablo Cody, but this is not a movie that will be contending for any awards. It is still laced with the stylized dialogue that made Cody a star, but surprisingly absent is any sort of narrative creativity to make the movie feel exciting. I imagine that “Jennifer’s Body” is to Diablo Cody what “Inglourious Basterds” is to Quentin Tarantino: a project that tickles their own fantasies. The difference is that the latter provides a rush of excitement while the former gives us little more to marvel at than star Megan Fox.
Fox is pretty – pretty unqualified to handle Cody’s rich dialogue. It rolls off her tongue with absolutely no energy, and she almost manages to make it boring. Fox has been given such a fun role, yet she seems to be thoroughly bored throughout the whole movie, displaying a mere fraction of the spunk that Ellen Page showed in “Juno.”
I’m not under the mistaken impression that Cody was trying to reinvent or innovate the high school film, and I recognize that she merely wanted to pay her tribute in the form of a very black comedy. “Jennifer’s Body” doesn’t stop at evoking them; the movie itself feels like a page ripped from their textbooks. I couldn’t get “Heathers” out of my head while I watched the demon Jennifer (Fox) sink into some teenage flesh. Her mismatched best friend, “Needy” (Amanda Seyfried of “Mamma Mia”), notices something a little abnormal in Jennifer’s behavior and investigates. As their small town of Devil’s Kettle mourns, Jennifer is feasting and Needy is trying to figure out a way to stop her.
There is still plenty of entertainment to be had in “Jennifer’s Body.” It’s a self-conciously bad movie, and you can still enjoy yourself laughing at the movie itself, not the jokes. Megan Fox might match the requirements to play Jennifer in looks, but she proves to be little more than a pretty face. She just doesn’t seem to get it – this is really dirty, funny stuff that she gets to handle, and it comes off as dull and uninspired. Although I like a little eye candy, “Jennifer’s Body” definitely would have benefitted from the casting of an actress who has the ability to fully realize the character. C /
We’re still in some hazy territory in the month of February, but the new decade looks to give this month some much needed energy. Fueled by two movies originally scheduled for release in 2009, I might actually drop a good amount of change at the movies in February (not just on repeat viewings of Oscar nominees).
February 5
Put “The Notebook” in front of anything and you are guaranteed a flock of screaming girls coming with boyfriends in tow. Put wildly popular model/actor Channing Tatum in the poster and you can add some more girls aside from the hopeless romantics. “Dear John” has just that: a super sweet story from author Nicholas Sparks and girl eye candy Tatum. Thankfully for the guys, the filmmakers cast Amanda Seyfried (“Jennifer’s Body”), who isn’t so bad on the eyes either.
I’m a little weary to endorse “From Paris with Love,” another John Travolta villain movie. He’s only good at playing subtle ones (“Pulp Fiction”) with the exception of “Face/Off.” 2009’s “The Taking of Pelham 123” was a disaster mainly because of Travolta and his villainy established only by constantly dropping the F-bomb. Potential redemption here? I’ll need positive word of mouth before I watch Travolta go evil again.
February 12
“Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief” is the name given to the film adaptation of Rick Riordan’s kids novel “The Lightning Thief.” Clearly Fox is setting up a franchise with the title, and they picked the right place to stake the claim. I read the book in seventh grade, and it is the real deal. I even got a chance to have lunch with the author, Riordan, who is one of the neatest people I have ever met. Whether they ruin it or not is yet to be known, but the movie is being helmed by Chris Columbus, the man who got the “Harry Potter” series flying. That has to count for something.
If Pierce Brosnan isn’t a big enough star to draw you to the aforementioned movie, you should find solace in “Valentine’s Day,” which features just about every romantic comedy actor ever. Literally, I can’t even list all of the stars of the movie here. The post would just be too darn big. Garry Marshall, director of “Pretty Woman” and “The Princess Diaries,” is in charge here, so I find some comfort in that. But if the movie flops, this will be a high-profile disappointment.
Sorry girls, the werewolf in “The Wolfman” is not played by Taylor Lautner. Academy Award-winning actor Benicio del Toro metamorphasizes in Victorian England into the hairy beast when the moon is ripe. This werewolf is not based on cheeky teen lit but on the 1941 horror classic. And this adaptation is rated R for “bloody horror violence and gore.” Get ready for some intense clawing.
A big winner at Cannes and a contender for the Best Foreign Film at this year’s Academy Awards, “A Prophet” is a foreign film that may be worth a look.
I guess this sort of serves as a “fall movie preview.” With this, I want to present what I’m looking forward to in September, what other might be looking forward to, and hopefully introduce you to some movies that you might not have heard of yet.
September 4
The movie that I’m most excited for opening this week is “Extract,” the latest comedy from Mike Judge, creator of “Office Space” and TV’s “King of the Hill.” The movie stars Jason Bateman, who has been in nearly every comedy and yet I still have not tired of him, as the owner of an extract factory who is a bit down on his luck. Also featuring a great supporting cast which includes J.K. Simmons (“Spider-Man,” “Juno”), Mila Kunis (TV’s “That ’70s Show”), Kristen Wiig (“SNL”), and Ben Affleck, the movie looks to be truly hilarious entertainment.
Other releases this week include “All About Steve,” a comedy with Sandra Bullock and Bradley Cooper (“The Hangover”), and “Gamer,” a non-stop action film with Gerard Butler (“The Ugly Truth”).
September 9 & 11
Opening on 9/9/09, “9” uses a clever marketing ploy to hopefully drive audiences its way. But I’m not sold. The ever creepy and quirky Tim Burton is behind it, and I have never really been into his type of movies. The story revolves around nine CGI animated rag dolls living in a post-apocalyptic world. Maybe this will be some sort of a breakout hit, but until I hear buzz from friends or other bloggers I trust, I’m not throwing my money at it.
“9” is the big attraction of the week. Also opening is Tyler Perry’s latest movie “I Can Do Bad All By Myself,” starring Taraji P. Henson of “Benjamin Button” fame, the thriller “Whiteout” starring the gorgeous Kate Beckinsale, and the horror flick “Sorority Row.”
September 18
There are several movies to get excited about that open this weekend. First and foremost is “The Informant,” starring Matt Damon. It takes your usual FBI rat story and flips it on its head, turning it into a comedy. I have always thought Damon has a great knack for subtle comedy, perfectly illustrated in the “Ocean’s” movies. The director is Steven Soderbergh, Oscar winner for “Traffic,” but has also helmed “Erin Brockovich” and all three “Ocean’s” films. And the good news is that this is only Matt Damon’s first role of the year with Oscar potential (see the December preview later).
Also opening is “Jennifer’s Body,” which is the first film written by Diablo Cody since winning the Oscar for “Juno.” It stars Hollywood’s beauty queen Megan Fox as a vampire who eats guys at her high school. Her presence alone will drive every young guy in America to this movie. It also features Amanda Seyfried, one of the bright spots in the otherwise disastrous film adaptation of “Mamma Mia!” I love the quick-witted humor of “Juno,” and although this doesn’t appear to offer similar antics, curiosity (and Megan Fox) will probably get me.
In limited release, “Bright Star” opens, a movie consider by many to be a major Oscar player. It isn’t the kind of movie that excites me just from watching the trailer, but the buzz surrounding it coming out of the Cannes Film Festival can’t be discarded. The movie follows the life of the poet John Keats in the early 1800s. It is directed by Jane Campion, writer/director of “The Piano,” and features a cast of nearly no recognizable names. I feel obliged to tell you about it because many are sure that you will be hearing about it during awards season and also because so many people love movies set in the beautiful English country with tons of beautiful costumes and people.
Also opening is “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” an animated adaptation of one of my favorite books growing up. Unfortunately, their idea of adapting it is taking the basic premise of food raining from the sky and destroying the rest of the original story. Maybe I will check it out for old time’s sake, but I’m not expecting anything special. The week also puts forth a romantic drama “Love Happens” starring Aaron Eckhart (“The Dark Knight”) and Jennifer Aniston. And technically, the writer/director of “Babel,” Guillermo Ariaga, releases his latest movie, “The Burning Plain,” to theaters this weekend, but you can watch it on demand starting August 21 if you are that curious.
September 25
Being a musical theater junkie, I feel that it is my duty to push “Fame.” The movie is a musical that follows a group of talented artists throughout their four years in high school in New York. At a time in their lives where they don’t know if they have what it takes it to make it big, all the emotions appear to run high. The movie features no stars. so hopefully this will launch some very promising careers.
For action fans, Bruce Willis is at it again in a high concept sci-fi called “Surrogates,” in which everyone in the world controls a robotic version of themselves from home called a surrogate. Willis plays a detective who investigates the possibility of the surrogates killing the user who operates it. For sci-fi fans, a screamfest called “Pandorum” with Dennis Quaid and Ben Foster (“3:10 To Yuma”) looks to deliver. For all those craving a raunchy comedy, a little studio will try to pack you into “I Hope They Serve Beer In Hell,” adapted from the tales of drinking and its consequences in the book of the same name. In limited release, those who like the costumes of “Bright Star” get “Coco Before Chanel,” the story of the legendary fashion designer. (NOTE: “The Invention of Lying” was pushed back to October 2.)
So, readers, what is your most anticipated in September? Anything I left off? Take the poll and let me know.
Recent Comments