SUMMER MOVIE PREVIEW PART 1: MAY

 There are two boom seasons for the mainstream film industry; the summer season, from May through to the end of August, and the holiday season, from mid-November through until Christmas Day.  The former is the biggest of the two, in length and in financial expenditure and reception.  It is a trend that is most often traced to June of 1975, when then-up and coming director Steven Spielberg's adaptation of the best-selling novel Jaws was given a revolutionary "wide release opening" of 400+ theater screens and 900+ by August, as opposed to the traditional method of regional releases that built on word of mouth as they spread across the country.  As what became the prototype of a major summer release, JAWS was a big budget, high concept adventure-thriller which Universal poured $1.8 million into an extensive marketing, including an unparalleled level of televised promotions.  The result was the biggest movie event in then-contemporary history and the first film to ever exceed a $100 million box office gross and the first certified "blockbuster".  A short two years later, in May of 1977, George Lucas' STAR WARS exceeded the JAWS box office numbers significantly and cemented in place what is still the current cornerstone of the Hollywood film industry, for better or worse.  Although these films, and the summer blockbusters of the following twenty-something years, were generally released within a time frame as early as late May and as late as late July, the past decade or so has seen the starting line for the summer blockbuster season creep into the first weekend of May

May 3rd

Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark/Iron Man

IRON MAN 3  (SCI-FI/ACTION)
PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief suggestive content.
Starring: Robert Downey, Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Don Cheadle, Ben Kingsley
This is the fifth year in a row for which a Marvel character has held a monopoly on kick-starting the summer season, and this one also kicks off the second chapter of Marvel Studios' revolutionary business practice.  Last year's season opener, THE AVENGERS, marked the conclusion of the "Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase 1", including IRON MAN, IRON MAN 2, THE INCREDIBLE HULK, THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER.  IRON MAN 3 begins "Phase 2", which will culminate with THE AVENGERS 2 in 2015.  KISS KISS, BANG BANG director Shane Black has taken the director's reigns from Jon Favreau and co-wrote the screenplay, and appears to be taking a somewhat darker turn.
Worth Seeing?:  Definitely, and for everybody, but especially young males.

Mulligan as Daisy and DiCaprio as Gatsby

May 10
THE GREAT GATSBY  (DRAMA/ROMANCE)

PG-13 for some violent images, sexual content, smoking, partying and brief language.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton
MOULIN ROUGE director Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's definitive novel of the Roaring 20s was originally slated for a release last Christmas but was pushed back for a summer release, presumably to avoid a head-on competition with LES MISERABLES, which was aiming for a similar demographic.  The advertising has emphasized a pulse-pounding, fast-living, flashy style that coincides with both the novel and Luhrmann's trademarks, but Luhrmann's a polarizing talent, so it could go either way.
Worth Seeing?:  Maybe; female audiences should be especially interested, but it may be difficult to enjoy if you haven't like Luhrmann's other films, like MOULIN ROUGE or ROMEO+JULIET.

PEEPLES  (COMEDY)
PG-13 for sexual content, drug material and language.
Starring: Craig Robinson, Kerry Washington, David Alan Grier
Tyler Perry didn't direct this one, instead he's producing Tina Gordon Chism's film, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of difference.  It's been marketed as just another Perry-styled black family comedy interwoven with melodrama and a family message, but if you fit the niche, why not?
Worth Seeing?:  Only if you're a Tyler Perry devotee.

May 17
STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (SCI-FI/ACTION-ADVENTURE)
PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Bruce Greenwood

Cumberbatch and Pine in the obligatory "Dark Knight" interrogation.

The 2009 reboot of the original franchise was polarizing amongst the main fanbase of "Trekkies", but breathed new energy into the series and made it accessible and appealing for an even wider audience.  As such, this sequel, which director J.J. Abrams has specified is a "stand-alone" adventure, so those who didn't see the last one will be able to follow along, has a lot to live up to, and so far, the previews suggest it will deliver.  As plainly indicated in the title, STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS is a much darker take on the adventures of the crew of the starship Enterprise, and although the rumors of a WRATH OF KHAN remake have been refuted, there certainly is a level of influence that has been noted in the marketing.  Cumberbatch, playing the modern archetype of a charismatic-but-cold terrorist villain, promises to be a real highlight.
Worth Seeing?:  Definitely, but probably with an interest skewed towards young males.


May 24
EPIC  (ANIMATED/FAMILY/ADVENTURE)
PG for mild action, some scary images and brief rude language.
Voices of: Amanda Seyfried, Josh Hutcherson, Christoph Waltz, Colin Farrell
This animated family film from Blue Sky Studios, the makers of the ICE AGE series, has invited many comparisons to other movies, but it appears that it isn't actually a direct ripoff of anything; instead, it seems to be a mishmash of directly ripped-off elements from various other movies, including AVATAR (not exactly the most original movie in the first place), FERNGULLY: THE LAST RAINFOREST and HONEY, I SHRUNK THE KIDS.  Blue Sky's movies are rarely much more than tolerable for the adult who will take the actual audience of interest, young children, to them, and this doesn't appear to breaking that trend.  Still, there's value in that, and girls will enjoy seeing a female lead and boys will like the action.
Worth Seeing?:  Not likely, except in the case of finding a way to occupy children for an hour and a half.
 FAST & FURIOUS 6  (ACTION/CRIME)
Not yet rated, but specifically tailored for a PG-13

This one picture alone stands for everything the franchise is.

Starring: Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Paul Walker
To surprise of just about everyone, when FAST FIVE was released in 2011, it reinvigorated the then-ten years old series by getting a positive critical reception and the biggest box office of any of its predecessors.  The series is basically a heavily watered down and glossed over series of old-fashioned exploitation films, with its focus on romanticized criminal activities, motor-head machismo tones and scantily-clad, smack talking women, so the expectations aren't very high.  I'm skeptical that this one can recreate the success of FAST FIVE, but there definitely is something to be said for souped-up cars and armored tanks battling at freeway speeds, as shown in the trailers.
Worth Seeing?:  Certainly not as a piece of even "semi-sophisticated" moivegoing, but probably as a Saturday matinee type of show if you're in a funky mood.

A Pieta among movie posters.

THE HANGOVER PART III (COMEDY)
R for pervasive language including sexual references, some violence and drug content, and brief graphic nudity.
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong
The Wolfpack returns for the final chapter of the HANGOVER trilogy, with another all-too-ridiculous mishap, this time when their friend Doug (Justin Bartha), who they lost in the original 2009 film, is kidnapped by gangsters who want Phil, Alan and Stu to deliver the flamboyant Mr. Chow (Jeong) to them.  Expect plenty of more hard-R high-jinks and not a ton of originality beyond jokes where no one else would venture, but optimistically speaking, this part also focuses more on Alan (Galifianakis), the funniest character of the series, and the ridiculously dramatic "climactic finale"-based marketing has been amusing.
Worth Seeing?:  No, probably not, but if you saw the first two, you might as well.  Just don't expect a whole lot.



May 31
AFTER EARTH  (SCI-FI/ADVENTURE)
PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and some disturbing images.
Starring: Jaden Smith, Will Smith

A Triceratops shitpile among movie posters.

After a disastrous streak of intensely-loathed films, the last of which was THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010), which failed to make a profit at the domestic box office and holds a 6% rating on RottenTomatoes, formerly-promising director M. Night Shyamalan has decided to film someone else's screenplay, albeit after making some tweaks of his own.  Regardless, it still sounds ridiculous enough to be Shyamalan's pen, detailing the story of Cypher Raige and his son, Kitai, played by the father and son duo, Will and Jaden Smith, who crash land on Earth 1000 years after cataclysmic event forced humanity to leave.  Now the Earth is inhabited by monstrous creatures and Kitai must find help after Cypher is injured.  Frankly, it just looks awful, but it should be really interesting to see how a film like this, directed by Shyamalan, does with Will "King of the Summer Box Office" Smith as top billing.  By now though, the marketing department has learned to keep the Shyamalan name off of the posters and previews.
Worth Seeing?:  Um, no, of course not; are you crazy?  Maybe if you were viewing under the influence of...something.
NOW YOU SEE ME  (THRILLER)
PG-13 for language, some action and sexual content.
Starring: Morgan Freeman, Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher
This glitzy, hip thriller looks an awful lot like OCEAN'S 11 with magicians, but that's not necessarily to its detriment, and it's the sort of thing that could play to 2010's CLASH OF THE TITANS director Louis Leterrier's flare for shallow and flashy action.  Ruffalo plays an FBI agent in pursuit of a team of Robin Hood-esque illusionists headlined by Freeman, who pull off elaborate heists during their performances.  In addition, the crackerjack cast includes the always-excellent Eisenberg, INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS' Melanie Laurent, Harrelson and Michael Caine.


Worth Seeing?:  It's nothing to get all hyped up over, but if you're going out anyway, it could be a pleasant diversion.

Check back in a month for Part 2:  June!

The Patriarchal Modern Blockbuster: STAR WARS

STAR WARS, later re-titled as STAR WARS EPISODE IV: A NEW HOPE, is easily one of the most widely seen films ever made, and also one of the most important, for better or worse.  Its history is complex, and unfortunately, 36 years later, it cannot truly be seen as what it was, and for many more reasons than you might think.  And yet, it is regardless, a marvel of cinema.
We all know too well the crippling modified aspects of the much-maligned "Special Edition", the worst of which has been Lucas' refusal to release quality remastered versions of the original theatrical versions, because, while there's nothing that bad about making alternate cuts, whether they help or hinder, making only the version with modifications available is an unethical, if relatively harmless, business practice, and especially distasteful for such a fanboy-driven franchise like Star Wars.  However, with Disney's recent acquisition of the property and Kathleen Kennedy's appointment as head of Lucasfilm, the chances of a remastered version released on a state-of-the-art format have become much more likely, even if it might not come along for as much as a decade.
But STAR WARS was also such an ingenious and novel film in 1977, and with its tremendous influence and massive expansion as a franchise, the flavor has changed somewhat.  Think, for example, of what it was like to sit in the dark theater in 1977, when the speakers suddenly boom with a grandiose orchestral fanfare and the title STAR WARS fills the screen and pulls back, and although this is a brand new, original film, the title is followed by a subtitle: Episode IV.  "IV"?  That means there have been three episode previously!  This movie is starting in the middle, but a crawl of words follow, filling us in on the previous events.  At the end of the opening titles, which fly into the distance of vast, open space, the shot pulls down to reveal a desert planet.  Suddenly though, ships pull through the shot; not the pristine and futuristic kind of ships you're familiar with, but grungy and "earthy", so to speak, and after the first flies over, it's followed by a vast ship that fills the entire screen and then some for a few seconds.  It's an action scene; it's already begun in an early chapter that doesn't exist.  There were no prequels, this universe felt all the more real because it didn't even have time to wait for us.

Harrison Ford in his most embarrassing role.

Just prior that summer in 1977, the biggest film of all time was JAWS, only two years old and directed by Lucas' friend Steven Spielberg, and the two created the modern blockbuster.  JAWS invented the blockbuster by grossing over $100 million, but STAR WARS defined it, smashing records all around and completing its initial theatrical run with over $220 million and making many millions more through merchandising partners.  For this reason, it is sometimes bemoaned by film scholars.  Today's current blockbuster/event/franchise-driven industry is all a direct result of STAR WARS; it set the precedent for high concept, special effects-heavy, fantasy-adventure films with heavy, youth-targeted marketing and wide merchandising that is reflected today in the industry that invests heavily in catering to the teen demographic.  In one sense, it revamped the film industry and re-established traditional mythic themes and escapist thrills in the mainstream film industry, but on the other hand, it's led Hollywood to sometimes ignore smaller markets, especially sophisticated adult audiences.  Personally, I think the modern blockbuster industry is great and has the same rate of quality as smaller films, but like anything, if taken to extremes like it has been, it becomes a handicap.
Although the title STAR WARS is solidly synonymous with the science fiction genre, it isn't quite sci-fi.  In fact, it is far more appropriately classified as "fantasy".  Science fiction takes place in a futuristic or otherwise technologically-advanced depiction of our real-life world/universe, where our supernatural is properly taken as science, like the Star Trek series, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY or most major superhero movies.  Fantasy, on the other hand, takes place in an "alternate" universe, one separate from the worldly dimension we occupy, like THE LORD OF THE RINGS TRILOGY, or sometimes in an alternate depiction of the past with distinctly fictional elements.  STAR WARS takes place in "a galaxy far, far away", with no connection to our Earth as we know it, and mystic warriors who can manipulate a fictional element.  Although the ray guns and interplanetary crafts are all but exclusive to science fiction, STAR WARS is not technically science fiction.

Still ranks among the best space battles in movies.

The STAR WARS story is a direct translation of age-old structures and motifs of mythology, most specifically, the hero's journey.  In the hero's journey tradition, the hero starts out simple; good but certainly not heroic, but when the pupil is ready, the teacher will appear.  The hero is Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the young farmboy, unaware of his glorious inheritance, and the teacher is Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness), the sage with the necessary connection to the hero's inheritance, who will guide him and mold him into what he is to become.  The farm on Tatooine represents the hero's inexperience, a place of unaffected innocence, separated from the darkness of the world.  The famous Mos Eisley Cantina scene, with the vast assortment of threatening alien creatures in the city indicated as "a wretched hive of scum and villainy", is the hero's first step outside of innocence, where he was unharmed, but static.  Experience is the first step on his journey; the innocent youth must die to be resurrected as the man.  It's all really fascinating stuff; you should check out Joseph Campbell's lectures on The Power of Myth.
STAR WARS is one of the undisputed major landmarks in cinematic history, technically, commercially and artistically, ranking alongside THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915), the original cinematic epic and introduction of modern techniques; THE WIZARD OF OZ (1939), the original "world-creating" film, using advanced makeup and special effects; CITIZEN KANE (1941), which took film past its stage roots, introduced modern cinematography and defined so-called "auteur filmmaking"; and THE GODFATHER (1972), which redefined the "American epic" broke barriers in atmosphere and violence.  Alongside JAWS, STAR WARS is also one of the, if not the, most influential film for today's generation of filmmakers, and eventually made "nerd culture" mainstream.

David Prowse as Vader and Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan

Because STAR WARS is most often associated with big summer blockbusters and popcorn movies, many people forget that STAR WARS received rave reviews from the critics when it was released and today is one of the most critically-acclaimed films of all time, was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture and Best Director, and won six Academy Awards, more than any other film that year, plus one "special award" (for sound design) and was among the original set of 25 films selected as "culturally, historically or aesthetically significant" for preservation by the National Film Registry in 1989.
Perhaps most importantly though, is how the film stands alongside THE WIZARD OF OZ and SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937) as one of the few films that so effortlessly transcends generation gaps, providing superior entertainment for viewers of all ages, and even those feathery 1970's haircuts can't outdate something like that.

STAR WARS (May 25, 1977)
Directed by George Lucas
Starring: Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Alec Guinness
PG for sci-fi violence and brief mild language.

The First Summer Blockbuster: JAWS

Prior to 1975, only a select few films had been granted a "wide release", the method by which nearly all blockbuster.  It also earned tremendous critical acclaim, won three Academy Awards and a nomination for Best Picture and has been cited as a major influence on the current generation of filmmakers, even inspiring the name of X-MEN (2000) director Bryan Singer's production company, Bad Hat Harry, an obscure reference to a line of dialogue.

The definitive movie poster

major motion pictures are released today, by releasing a film in hundreds, and today, thousands of cinemas simultaneously.  Previously, films were released in limited select markets, similar to how some of today's independent films are, and would gradually move their way into more markets, relying on word of mouth from the earlier markets.  In 1975, JAWS, an adaptation of a popular novel directed by an up-and-coming prodigy, was released in several hundred theaters on the same day, and the number of screens quickly increased exponentially as the film rapidly shot to become the highest-grossing film ever at that point in history and the first film to ever to gross $100 million, making it the first official
Although the film is widely considered a "horror" or "thriller", I tend to think of it foremost as an "adventure", with its central themes of variations on masculinity, extreme peril in exotic locations and man vs. nature conflict.  That said though, "suspense" is another label sometimes applied to JAWS, and that one fits pretty well, too.  The film has always been marketed primarily as a "scary thriller", and it does deliver on those promises, with intense close-calls and a healthy helping of gory deaths, but most of that is restrained to the first half, before the three major characters; Amity Island Police Chief Brody (Roy Scheider), salty hunter-for-hire and boat captain, Quint (Robert Shaw), and upper-class marine biologist Hooper, set sail aboard Quint's boat, the Orca, to kill the great white shark that's been feasting off a smorgasbord of Amity Island residents and tourists.
On this rusty old fishing boat, these three distinct personalities are put into direct conflict with one another.  Hooper and Quint are like mirror opposites of each other, both are of the same world but from opposite ends.  Hooper's childhood trauma involving a shark inspired a deep obsession and admiration of sharks, and he devoted his life to studying them as a  marine biologist.  Quint's experience as a survivor of the U.S.S. Indianapolis, where he witnessed dozens of fellow sailors ruthlessly devoured by sharks in WWII, has also inspired an obsession over sharks, but one of a much more Ahab-esque type.  In a mix of respect, fear and cold vengeance, Quint hunts sharks, dozens of their jaws dangling around his seaside shop.  Quint is old school, brash, and dangerously erratic; a working class-hero in overdrive.  Hooper was born with a silver spoon in his mouth; he's incredibly sure of himself, more knowledgeable than Quint, but less experienced, and both have egos enough to clash.  Even as they hate each other, Quint and Hooper seem to recognize some sort of equal, if different, footing in their world, and Chief Brody is the novice they push around.  Brody is kind of the audience portal into the story, the everyman character in the middle that we can relate to on some level.  He is responsible for hiring both Hooper and Quint, but he winds up as a subordinate to them as they clash over ideals like an angel and devil upon his shoulders, albeit with a certain ambiguity.  In the end though, Brody becomes the only one left he can rely on, and the film gives the audience their day when he blows that shark to hell in one of the most marvelously over-the-top movie deaths.

This scene never fails to make me hungry

As Marty McFly notes in BACK TO THE FUTURE PT. II (1989), "the shark still looks fake," it really does, but it's also still awesome, and it less than authentic look supports as a testament to the effectiveness of the film's other factors, because it's still an intense thrill ride.  The shark is one of the great movie monsters, and almost anyone who knows anything about JAWS knows that the stylish presentation of the shark was largely out of necessity.  When your production's mechanical shark is giving you hell, you're forced further into creativity, and you get brilliant images of floating debris that is knowingly attached to the approaching beast, and the the threat is mysterious but not so much that you don't have some idea of what makes it so threatening.  The first few kills in the film don't show the shark at all, but John Williams' iconic score makes its presence entirely clear; the first is in the iconic prologue where the skinny-dipping young lady (you gotta have a dash of sex in these things, ya know), played by Susan Backlinie, is simply thrashed around while she screams, no blood and no onscreen shark.  The next is the Kintner boy, suddenly sucked into the water with blood gushing up, and the third, Ben Gardner, doesn't even happen onscreen at all, but his gruesome remains are found in his wrecked boat.  Just after the "chum some of this shit" line, and just before the "You're going to need a bigger boat," line is what most people cite as the startling first sight of the shark as its head bursts out from the water, and as excellent as that scene is, I'm particularly fond of the fourth kill where you can see the shark through the water surface as its gaping jaws near the swimmer; the imagery is harrowing in the best way.
There's been some scholarly debate over symbolic meanings of the shark, Brody, Quint and Hooper, a lot of the theories relating to the then-recent Watergate scandal that had left many Americans disillusioned, but in my opinion, such theories are an unfortunate example of attempting to assign supposedly "suitable" meaning to a film in order to justify its worth.  I don't think art has to be intentionally symbolic in order to be symbolic, but I think this is a case of refusing to simply acknowledge the great value of escapist art.  It's very character-driven, insightful and intelligent, but it is all in the name of pleasurable and thrilling entertainment.

This kind photo is a requirement when making a killer shark film

Those kinds of films were director Steven Spielberg's bread and butter for many years before he turned to more serious "Oscar fare," beginning with SCHINDLER'S LIST in 1993, although he has since turned out the occasional decent adventure.  JAWS was Spielberg's second theatrical feature, his first one being SUGARLAND EXPRESS just a year earlier, but it bears a strong resemblance to DUEL, a made-for-television movie that Spielberg directed and aired in 1971.  DUEL was also about the everyman, a man en route to a conference, against a deadly, larger-than-life force, a rusty old semi truck driven by an unseen, psychopathic driver, and finally, the everyman explodes his attacker.  JAWS made Spielberg's career, even after the production shot astronomically over budget and the shooting well beyond schedule, but it remains one of the finest testaments to his talent.

Fair warning though, JAWS is one of those funny little movies that parents recall from their youth as happy memories and then unsuspectingly show to their then-traumatized children, and as hilarious as that kind of thing is, JAWS is a surprisingly brutal movie with moments of graphic gore and nudity.  If it were released brand-new today, the content might very likely earn an R rating, but its cultural familiarity and genre aspects work as mitigating factors.  Even adult viewers may get a bit queasy, but that's just part of the experience for them.

JAWS (June 20, 1975)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring: Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw, Richard Dreyfuss
Rated PG for unspecified reasons (but more suited for a very hard PG-13 today, due to some intense bloody shark attacks, gore, nudity, brief drug content and language.)

Marvel Studios at the Box Office

Ever since the summer of 2002, the characters of Marvel Comics have been a staple in the business of summer blockbusting.  That summer saw the long-awaited and enormously successful release of SPIDER-MAN, adapted from Marvel's most popular character.  It wasn't the first Marvel adaptation to grace the big screen; the first major film release based on a Marvel character was the George Lucas-produced mega-flop HOWARD THE DUCK in 1986 (infamous for kinky duck sexuality), but in 1998, the hard-R action/horror flick BLADE was successful enough to garner a 2002 sequel, and in 2000, stylish director Bryan Singer's adaptation, X-MEN, became a major hit.  It was SPIDER-MAN though when Hollywood first staked real money on a Marvel character and then shattered records across the board, encouraging the industry to seriously invest in Marvel properties.  Of the ten highest-grossing films in each of the past ten years, eight have included Marvel adaptations.  In honor of Marvel Studios' seventh independently produced feature film, IRON MAN 3, coming out in just two weeks, on May 3, here's an overview of the top ten highest-grossing Marvel Comics film adaptations to date:

1.  MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS (2012)  Total Gross: $1,511,757,910  Production Budget: $220
million
How Good Is It?:  10/10

THE AVENGERS (2012)  It is too damn awesome.

Last year's mega-blockbuster, released as MARVEL'S THE AVENGERS in the U.S. and as AVENGERS ASSEMBLE in the U.K. in order to differentiate itself from infamous 1998 film, THE AVENGERS, became the third highest-grossing film of all time.  It was the sixth film produced independently by Marvel Studios, in what they're calling the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the five previous films deliberately crafted to lead into this revolutionary crossover of franchises.  The result, as directed and co-written by wide appeal fanboy-favorite Joss Whedon, is massively and consistently entertaining, and although the jury is still divided over whether it is actually the best superhero movie of all time, it's quite probably the most entertaining.  The only real competition is THE DARK KNIGHT (2008), the official best-reviewed comic book adaptation ever, and that's much meatier, but I'd argue that THE AVENGERS is tastier.
2.  SPIDER-MAN 3 (2007)  Total Gross: $890,871,626  Production Budget: $258 million
How Good Is It?: 5/10
As is a fairly common occurrence for third parts of major film franchises, SPIDER-MAN 3 is where the series broke down, in quality at least, as it still grossed more than any other film in the franchise so far.  In what seems to be a case of detrimental studio influence, the resulting film is cluttered and scattershot, with three villains, including fan-favorite Venom being criminally underused and obviously manufactured in.  It's still suitably entertaining, but ultimately unsatisfactory and heartbreakingly disappointing when alongside its predecessors.
3.  SPIDER-MAN (2002)  Total Gross: $821,708,551  Production Budget: $139 million
How Good Is It?:  7/10
As identified in the introductory passage, SPIDER-MAN is the one that started it all, and all after almost a quarter of a century in production hell, falling apart in the hands of one filmmaker after another, it finally came to fruition at the hands of camp horror director Sam Raimi.  Today, SPIDER-MAN has become oddly dated, and not so much by its special effects as most action/fantasy films are prone to, but instead for being a midpoint between the campy comic films that BATMAN (1989) kicked into gear and the more recent, self-respecting comic book films that would come after.  It makes for pretty good entertainment, and it obviously had a ton of influence, but it occasionally veers into awkward camp.

4.  SPIDER-MAN 2 (2004)  Total Gross: $783,766,341  Production Budget: $200 million
How Good Is It?: 10/10
While most post-SPIDER-MAN comic adaptations are somewhat uncomfortable about their source material, and usually for the best, SPIDER-MAN 2 is the rare great film that earnestly embraces its comic book background, and its young male audience, and succeeds tremendously.  Even while remaining palatable to a child audience, it's still great entertainment for adults as well, men and women.  It isn't the best comic book film, but it is the definitive comic book film.

5.  IRON MAN 2 (2010)  Total Gross: $623,933,33  Production Budget: $200 million
How Good Is It?: 6/10
Iron Man's second outing lacks the serendipitous brilliance of the first and descends into disappointing bombast towards the end, but Robert Downey, Jr.'s performance is still a highlight and Samuel L. Jackson's usual badass schtick, here applied as S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury, is too much fun.
6.  THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN (2012)  Total Gross: $752,216,557  Production Budget: $230 million
How Good Is It?: 7/10
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN is the kind of movie that really infuriates me, because it has so much brilliance, but it's crippled by a smattering of stupid decisions.  First off, the good stuff; Emma Stone (as Gwen Stacy) is excellent as always, because she's freaking Emma Stone; Andrew Garfield as the lead is a little questionable as a social outcast, but he has a more magnetic screen presence than Tobey Maguire did; the action is entertaining and the romantic scenes between Stone and Garfield, especially the first kissing scene, are excellent.  Unfortunately, what eventually strangles the film's potential greatness is a case of severe over-editing to postpone certain revelations for a sequel, but leaves gaping plot holes and inconsistencies in pacing; on top of that, retelling the origin story handicaps the plot somewhat and the Lizard is too silly a villain for so serious a movie.  Worth a watch though.

IRON MAN (2008)  This is just the picture everyone else uses.

7.  IRON MAN (2008)  Total Gross: $585,174,222  Production Budget: $140 million
How Good Is It?: 10/10
This was Marvel Studios' first independent production, and even as it dangerously began production without a finished script, it was made at a surprisingly conservative budget (by today's standards anyway) and the final product is one of the most entertaining Marvel adaptations to date.  The trump card is Robert Downey, Jr., in his big career reestablishing role as an egotistical, weapons-manufacturing playboy who becomes a superhero, and the film also benefits greatly from its improvisational nature resulting from filming without a finished script.
8.  X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2007)  Total Gross: $459,359,555  Production Budget: $210 million
How Good Is It?: 3/10
Although X-MEN ORIGINS: WOLVERINE gave it a run for its money in 2009, this third chapter of Twentieth Century Fox's X-Men franchise is arguably the worst X-Men movie to date, after Bryan Singer, who directed the first two, gave up the reigns to Brett Ratner, so that he could depart to direct SUPERMAN RETURNS (2006).  Ratner has not yet been able to progress beyond generic action directing, and sometimes he misses hard, and this film, perhaps even more thanks to Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn's script, gets almost everything wrong.  It kills off major characters stupidly and indiscriminately, diverts attention away from the most interesting characters and has a generally ugly visual aesthetic, as well as downright awful dialogue.
9.  THOR (2011)  Total Gross: $449,326,618  Production Budget: $150 million
How Good Is It?: 7/10
THOR is the fourth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and seemingly the most difficult to adapt for a wide audience, although, clearly the Hulk has been giving Hollywood trouble for a while before THE AVENGERS got it right, albeit not as a lead role.  But Thor is an alien/god who travels between worlds on a "rainbow bridge", talks like a viking, wears a cape (not as acceptable in a post-modern environment) and his trademark power is a big ol' hammer which he hits people with, but can also use it to fly or summon lightning.  Frankly, it's a tough sell, so for better or worse, THOR is more mechanical than the other Marvel Studios endeavors to date, mostly going through the motions, but benefits from a charming lead performance by Chris Hemsworth and an excellent and sympathetic antagonist from Tom Hiddleston.  The musical score by Patrick Doyle is effectively rousing and there's some nice King Arthur influences in there, too.
10.  X2: X-MEN UNITED (2003)  Total Gross: $407,711,549  Production Budget: $110 million

X2 (2003)  Women, am I right?

How Good Is It?: 8/10
The second X-Men movie, I think, is just barely behind 2011's X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, for the rank of best X-Men movie to date.  X2 picks up where X-MEN left off in 2000, but you don't even need to see the first film, and this one is far better anyway.  The film interestingly looks at mutants as an unofficial allegory for homosexuals, including a boy's mother who,after learning he's a mutant, asks him if he's tried "not being a mutant," Wolverine gets the best action scenes he's had in any movie so far and the opening "Nightcrawler" scene in the White House is awesome.

An Adventure 65 Million Years in the Making: 20 Years Later

This June will mark the 20th anniversary of the cinematic wide release of JURASSIC PARK on 11 June,78% Tomatometer; please don't lynch me).  But of the many adventure/sci-fi films to Spielberg's credit, JURASSIC PARK is the last that can claim the status of a classic.

1993, and this past weekend, the film was re-released into theaters with a stereoscopic 3D and IMAX conversion.  JURASSIC PARK is, to date, probably Steven Spielberg's last great movie adventure, although 2011's THE ADVENTURES OF TINTIN is a strong contender that may get better with age, and I also admit to being a defender of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL (2008) (hey people, it has a
It's obviously not the old-fashioned adventure thrills that populate the INDIANA JONES series; these are scary adventure thrills, thematically reminiscent of Universal monster movies from the 1930's-1940's and the pulpy sci-fi morality plays of 1950's b-movie matinees.  This kind of filmmaking was a return to the form of Spielberg's JAWS (1975), a man vs. nature survival adventure-thriller populated with human entrees and introspection.
As far as setups and executions of cinematic tension go, JURASSIC PARK remains one of the most magnificent examples in all of cinematic history.  Take for instance, the Tyrannosaurus Rex introduction sequence; what really brings in the audience is the promise of seeing a big ol' T-Rex wreaking havoc up on the big screen and people getting gobbled up (because we're all a little sick), but after an hour, the Rex still has yet to show up and only a single man has become dinosaur fodder, with most of it implied.  They tease us with a goat chained to a stake meant to lure the T-Rex out to the fence, but that fails.  Then it starts to rain (always a fine dramatic touch) and the ground tremors.  There's the iconic image of the glass of water on the tour transport's dashboard, the water rippling more with each approaching thunderous impact.  Then, Lex (Ariana Richards) notices the goat is gone; the slowly building tension is then punctuated by the goat's bloody leg landing on the roof window, accompanied by the roar of the tyrannosaur.  A couple glimpses are teased, claws testing the deactivated electric fence, the dinosaur throwing back what's left of the goat.  Like Spielberg did out of necessity in JAWS, he's patient and deliberate in delivering the goods.  The tension multiplies as we get tiny tastes of the sweet stuff and scoot to the edges of our seats, yearning for more.  Then, the payoff, as the Tyrannosaurus ventures out of its paddock, and then the characters really panic.  The rain, the dark, the noise and the spectacle are all combined into a massive energy as the long-awaited dinosaur struts to let us soak it all in.  The reality of the threat is enhanced by the detail, such as the Rex's eye brought close to the window guarding Lex and Tim (Joseph Mazzello), and Lex shines a light at it, causing the beast's pupil to constrict.  Then the Tyrannosaur knocks the roof window in, with only the sheet of glass between the terrified children and the dagger-like teeth while Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Dr. Ian Malcolm watch on from their car.  After Grant and Malcolm distract the beast, we get the best kill in the movie: the Tyrannosaurus Rex eating a lawyer off of a toilet.  Brilliant.

For better or worse, JURASSIC PARK also ushered in a new era of the summer blockbuster and other big budget Hollywood films by busting down the last remaining physical barriers of imaginative filmmaking with the revolutionary technology of "photo-realistic" computer-rendered effects.  Computer generated imagery (CGI) had been utilized in many films previously, but was limited to relatively simplistic, non-organic objects such as the watery "pseudopod" in THE ABYSS (1988) and the metallic T-1000 from T2: JUDGEMENT DAY, or within an appropriate context, such as the computer-rendered world of TRON (1982).  JURASSIC PARK's dinosaurs were always intended to use state-of-the-art animatronic puppets for close-up shots of the dinosaurs and shots that required direct human interaction as appears in the finished film, but the wide shots were initially developed with stop-motion animation by Industrial Light & Magic (ILM) special fx man, Phil Tippet, designed specially to include "motion blur", to make the effects look more natural (as seen on the JURASSIC PARK Blu-ray bonus material).  The results fell somewhat short of satisfactory though in the test shots, so animators at ILM began experimenting with CGI technology, and the rest is history.  The CG dinosaurs included skeletal and muscular animation layers with detailed, textured skin.  Now, I'm no Luddite, but I will say that it's unfortunate that some of today's filmmakers (*cough* *cough* Michael Bay *cough* Stephen Sommers *cough*) haven't taken a cue from the way this technology was used in JURASSIC PARK, even if out of necessity, where it was used when practical effects were physically impossible or financially unfeasible, because, while excessive CGI alone cannot break a good film, there certainly is something to be said of real-life, on-set spectacle.
For a two decades-old blockbuster, one of the most crippling effects of age can be the special effects, which often provoke laughs to contemporary audiences accustomed to the most up-to-date visuals, but surprisingly, JURASSIC PARK still does pretty well on that front.  There are certain shots of dinosaurs that have a noticeably "computery" look to them, but the well-placed use of CG effects makes such flaws relatively unobtrusive, and there are several shots that would not garner complaints in a major new movie today.  The fashion styles of a few characters are really about as dated as it gets, and the children characters are especially reminiscent of the nineties, but that's okay because, as usual, Spielberg directs them to be childlike but not irritating to the audience.  However, I must confess that young Lex's aptitude for the advanced theme park's computer system at a climactic moment strains credulity.
Some have accused the film of being little more than spectacle, as flashy but vapid special effects extravaganza, but that is an unfortunate misread, because the film is actually insightful and multi-layered.  There are meta themes and elements threaded throughout regarding the nature of technology outpacing its creators and the evolution of the outdated, and the major characters are all very richly developed.  Plus, it's fun as hell.

JURASSIC PARK  (1993)
4 out of 4 stars
Directed by Steven Spielberg
Starring Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Richard Attenborough, Jeff Goldblum
PG-13 for intense science fiction terror.

The Swinging Pendulum of Cinematic Politics

It's only bad in the movies!  In real life, guns are patriotic.

The politics of the mainstream media, and more specifically, the mainstream movie industry, are surprisingly inconsistent and complex, despite what Fox News may have you believe.  It's true that there are more, and certainly more prominent, proponents of the leftist politics in the Hollywood community, but like Clint Eastwood reminded us last fall, there definitely is a political right wing to every community, including Hollywood.  You hear talk about the weird and wacky behavior of Hollywood, the leftist campaigning and what many perspectives condemn as immorality, but that's not actually because it's Hollywood.  Hollywood is like a small town community but with a higher average income and disproportionate media attention, and like any small town resident will tell you, it's all about the gossip, but that media megaphone blasts those grapevine highlights out at the whole world, and gossip is not about the flattering or restrained; it's about what's outrageous, what's incredible and what we can condemn or occasionally praise.  Leftist Hollywood is more myth than anything else.  There's a truth to gossip, but relying on that source alone, without scrutiny, is too easy and allows us to do exactly what we want by reminding us how good we are for not being as weird or immoral as others.

Many movies are easily identified as political statements and many more at least feature some sort of political statement on the side.  The outrage at a supposed majority of movies opposing our "moral" viewpoints however, seems mainly based in the desire to believe ourselves and our demographic to be persecuted, which justifies the universal tendency to sympathize more with ourselves, despite the possibly more severe suffering of others.  Most major mainstream movies actually avoid any deliberate political leanings of any sort, because even if a political statement may draw audiences that share their perspective, it will alienate those audiences of a different perspective, but when a film studio invests big money in a major movie, they want to bring in audiences of all perspectives that have money to spend.  However, most movies have some sort of agenda beyond pure entertainment, however how potent, but even then, the political leanings of those agenda-involved films is not set in one direction.  Instead, the political leanings of mainstream movies swings like a pendulum, repelled from whatever political wing stands in power.

We aren't talking in absolutes by any means; there will always be detractors, but there tends to be a higher concentration of liberally-slanted films during a Republican administration, and in contrast, a higher concentration of conservatively-slanted films during a Democratic administration.  It usually becomes most apparent if and when a political party carries on into a second term of power in the executive branch, and often a few more will trickle out during the first couple years of a new administration, having begun production during the previous administration.

For example, during the recent summer-fall election season and continuing still now, with the re-election of Democratic President Barack Obama, there has been an increased concentration of films sympathetic to conservative sentiments.  See:

Bane (Tom Hardy) works overtime to kill job creators.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES (July 20):  While the politics were most likely unintentional, and Christopher Nolan has said as much in interviews, the antagonistically manipulated version of class warfare was all too well-timed with the Occupy Wall Street movement.  Much of it was inspired from Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities and the blatantly leftist 1927 film METROPOLIS, but Batman/Bruce Wayne is a member of the 1%, so applying him to a class warfare story has certain political implications.
director/co-writer
WON'T BACK DOWN (September 28):  Although it flopped at the box office, this anti-union school reform drama was a plentifully conservative Hollywood release from 20th Century Fox, co-produced with Walden Media, owned by notable far-right businessman Philip Anschutz.
HERE COMES THE BOOM (October 12): A Happy Madison MMA comedy starring Kevin James, this one was laced throughout with strong elements of American exceptionalism ideology, including an overwrought citizenship ceremony finale and pro-Americanization sub-plots; unfortunately, the Happy Madison tendency toward racism-based humor hinders the conservative messages.
RED DAWN (November 21): This remake of the 1985 cult classic was originally intended for a 2010 release, but MGM's bankruptcy delayed it until FilmDistrict bought the U.S. distribution rights and minor modifications were made for an international market.  Regardless, the finished film is thick with right-wing American ideology to an unusually extreme level, including exceptionalism, gun culture and jingoistic fantasy.
JACK REACHER (December 21): Starring Tom Cruise as a Tom Clancy-styled ex-M.P. officer and loose cannon, this action-thriller was laced throughout with pro-conservative quips, as well as a dose of pro-gun ideology with Robert Duvall as a gun-dealing ally of Reacher's.
PARENTAL GUIDANCE (December 25): A Billy Crystal/Bette Midler family comedy that happily ridicules modern parenting techniques in favor of old-time, tough-talking child-rearing , and even has Midler going nuts all over a stereotypical Russian music teacher with Soviet-era terminology.
ZERO DARK THIRTY (January 11):  This historical film about the pursuit of Osama Bin Laden has a remarkably convoluted political history; when production began, conservatives accused it of having pro-Obama sentiments (a groundless assumption based in President Obama having gave the mission order) and then accused the Obama administration of overindulging the production with government records.  Toward its release, prolific Hollywood liberals condemned the film for allegedly endorsing the Bush-era's use of "enhanced interrogation" torture, and conservatives praised the film in turn, also for allegedly depicting the Obama administration as a hindrance to the hunt for Bin Laden.  You really have to see it for yourself, but I believe that it does not condone torture or comment on Obama's policies and instead just shows what happened with impartiality and then lets the viewers decide for themselves.  Either way, it has a reputation.
THE LAST STAND (January 18):  Arnold Schwarzenegger's return to leading roles was a box office flop about an old-school border sheriff beating the hell out of Mexican drug cartels and anyone (including those pussy-footing liberals) who gets in his way.
TOP GUN 3D (February 8):  Tony Scott's 1980's classic of unintentionally homoerotic antics in the wet dream version of the U.S. Air Force got a stereoscopic 3D-conversion re-release.
A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD (February 14):  The fifth film in this Bruce Willis-starring action franchise was the truly bizarre result of an attempt to make an American exceptionalist film while being more interested in the international market than in the domestic U.S. market.
G.I. JOE: RETALIATION (March 28):  The sequel/reboot to 2009's disappointing G.I. JOE: THE RISE OF COBRA was originally slated for release in June 2012 but was held back, inexplicably, for a stereoscopic 3D conversion.  In addition to the obvious jingoistic tones, there are heavy American exceptionalist themes, an anti-nuclear disarmament plot and assorted pro-conservative quips.

Hollywood doesn't look quite so biased when you line things up like that, does it?  So where does all the talk of liberal Hollywood come from?  There's actually an incredibly complex history to all such theories, full of an unreasonable number of affecting elements, but in our contemporary culture, it can largely be traced to the non-Hollywood independent film industry and the viewing preferences of politically-related demographics.

Never has there been a president so friggin' evil.

Admittedly, Hollywood does have their own affection for the independent film industry; the films generally come ready-made, inexpensive and the studios can pick them up cheaply enough for distribution then make a suitable profit.  Also, independent films, outside of studio executive influences, are closer to what a lot of Hollywood big shots started out hoping to make; independent films don't have to try to please everyone, so they can bite who they please.  Those kinds of films get a lot of talk on their own, without massive marketing campaigns, and have an aura of importance, real or imagined, and when you're in the entertainment industry, there's a certain insecurity about winding up with a body of work completely made up vapid product.  Entertainers want to feel like they weren't just some passing pleasantry in time; they crave history's remembrance, so they find room to make statements with hopes of historical credence while the dollars are rolling in for the big escapism movies.  Anyway, independent cinema genuinely does have a solidly liberal sentiment.  There definitely is a conservative presence in the independent industry too, especially lately, with ATLAS SHRUGGED and the surprisingly successful documentary 2016: OBAMA'S AMERICA, but those political films are still a fairly minor percentage.  One simply has to take a look at the film lineups of any major film festival life Cannes of Sundance to see the impressive array of liberal propaganda in the independent industry's output, such as the pro-euthanasia winner of the 2012 Palme d'Or, AMOUR, Sundance's 2012 Grand Jury Prize: Dramatic winner, BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD, which involved various liberal elements including themes related to global warming, or almost anything Harvey Weinstein ever produced.  Most of those "liberal films" that conservative groups protest are not Hollywood products, but are instead independent films that Hollywood studios purchase the distribution rights to for inexpensive profits, such as BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (2005), FAHRENHEIT 9/11 (2004), MILK (2008) or THE KIDS ARE ALRIGHT (2010).  Hollywood is just too timid to bet significant money on something that might seriously alienate a major paying demographic, but they admire those films enough to curate them.  What makes this high concentration of liberally-slanted independent films a bit peculiar is that independent film production can't be traced to an actual industrial body like Hollywood's closely associated set of major film studios, so there isn't an actual influence to direct blame at.  However, it is clear that independent filmmaking has a much stronger reputation for artistic value than mainstream filmmaking (of course, they can't sell their products on massive production values like Hollywood can), and artistic communities do have a very consistent

Lesbians aren't hot anymore.  Thanks Hollywood!

reputation for liberal sentiments, but the psychologists and scientists can debate the merits of all that on their own.

The effect of viewing preferences between demographics is a really interesting phenomenon in and of itself.  Although family values are certainly not exclusive to conservatives, they certainly have a much stronger interest in the "old-fashioned" family values of simpler times than liberals do, and as conservatives, naturally they are more reserved in their tastes, so the favored type of films for conservatives are "family films", where as liberals are usually more likely to venture toward novel films with edgy content and themes.  What's extremely odd though is that the family film industry, most specifically, the family film core of animation, tends to draw very liberal types of filmmakers.  The early days of Walt Disney's animation studios involved animators and other artists of less than stable backgrounds in major positions, and a few top animators were notorious alcoholics and frequenters of establishments with unsavory reputations.  Today, the Disney studios have a uniquely diverse makeup, including highly-positioned gay filmmakers.  Jim Henson's Muppet Studios have also always been a draw for leftist performers high on individuality and liberal values.  In the world of family entertainment, there's a disproportionate presence of insensitive and pompous "one percenters", flat-out antagonistic businessmen and an infinite supply of pro-tolerance, anti-violence lessons.  Among the major films marketed toward families in recent years are the environmentalism fable THE LORAX (2012), pro-tolerance PARANORMAN (2012) (although, despite the marketing, it wasn't very family friendly), pro-environmentalism WALL-E (2008) and THE MUPPETS (2011) who were antagonized by evil oilman Tex Richman.  Goodness knows why it all works out that way, but those are the films that most conservatives are seeing, and going by those films alone, yeah, you'd really think movies were all about the evil capitalists.