Week in Rewind’s Comprehensive Field Guide to Fall Movies 2010: September

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Yes, I know, autumn doesn’t actually start until Wednesday, Sept. 22. But lucky for us, the fall movie season kicks off as soon as the dust settles from the summer blockbusters. As the leaves turn, the movies do too, mostly taking a grittier or smarter tone than some of their summer predecessors in an attempt to grab some early Oscar buzz.

This fall is filled with some clear winners and losers. Despite having a lot of star power (George Clooney, Keira Knightley Ben Affleck, just to name a few), this September's schedule is unlikely to bring in a lot of box office. Outside of “Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole,” there are certainly no guarantees to make money.

Box office aside, below is a list of films for September broken up into four sections: Movies to see, movies on the fence, movies to skip and September's surprise. Check it out, and prepare for fall movies.

September

Movies to See:

“The American” (Thriller, drama, Sept. 1): George Clooney plays an assassin who has retreated into the Italian Countryside. Clooney, the last of a dying breed of true movie stars, doesn’t really make bad movies. The leading roles the star chooses continue to get darker, and “The American” looks to be Clooney’s edgiest yet.

Having director Anton Corbijn (“Control”) behind the camera just gives further reassurance that “The American” is going to set the tone for the rest of the fall season.

“Machete” (Action, Sept. 3)
Simply put, Robert Rodriguez’s latest film, in collaboration with his longtime editing partner Ethan Maniquis, is going to be a lot of fun. But would you expect anything less from the man who brought us “Planet Terror,” “From Dusk Till Dawn” and “Once Upon a Time in Mexico”?

“Machete,” based on Rodriguez’s trailer made for the “Grindhouse” movie experience, stars Danny Trejo as the title character, an ex-Federale who launches an assault seeking revenge on his former employer (Jeff Fahey). Also along for the ride are Jessica Alba, Cheech Marin, Michelle Rodriguez, Robert De Niro, Don Johnson and Steven Seagal ... yes .. that Steven Seagal.

“The Town” (Crime drama, Sept. 17)
When it comes to directing, Ben Affleck sticks to what he knows -- Boston-based crime -- and he does it so well. Following up 2007’s “Gone Baby Gone,” Affleck is adapting yet another successful novel, “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan.

His model for success hasn’t gone stale, and with a cast featuring himself, Jeremy Renner, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm and Blake Lively, among many others, there’s a strong chance Affleck will one-up his previous effort with “The Town.”

“Jack Goes Boating” (Comedy, Sept. 17) Philip Seymour Hoffman, an offbeat romantic comedy about Jack (Hoffman), a limo driver, and his budding relationship with Connie (Amy Ryan) after a blind date. As their relationship progresses, the couple who set them up (John Ortiz, Daphne Rubin-Vega) find their marriage falling apart.

Hoffman, one of today's finest actors, has set himself up for a successful start to his directing career with “Jack Goes Boating.” The subject matter is perfect for him, and it will certainly please Philly faithfuls. And if you believe the title, you may also get to see him go boating.

“Buried” (Sept. 24 limited, Oct. 8 wide) Ryan Reynolds is buried alive, and he needs some help. Could he possibly use the powers from his Green Lantern ring to escape? Well, not in this movie, anyway.

With that said, there’s nothing more frightening to a claustrophobe such as myself than being buried alive. Writer Chris Sparling and director Rodrigo Cortes have created a simple, yet undeniably tense premise in “Buried.” Judging by the trailer, they seem to throw the audience right in the coffin with Ryan, a lighter and a cell phone. Sounds like a party to me.

“You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” (Comedy, Sept. 22) At 75, Woody Allen is still writing and directing circles around pretty much everyone. His latest effort follows two married couples, Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) and Helena (Gemma Jones), and their daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) and Roy (Josh Brolin).

The characters, each one their own brand of neurotic, struggle with the intricacies of relationships, anxiety and passion to create what looks like a pretty dark, but golden, comedy. Only Woody Allen could pull it off.

To quote Chicago Sun-Times’ writer Richard Roeper, “Even a relatively slight effort from Woody Allen is galaxies above most modern comedies.” Thankfully, over the past five or so years, Allen has been putting out more than just “slight efforts” -- he has returned to true form. “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” will, yet again, be galaxies above most modern comedies.

Movies that show promise:

“My Dog Tulip” (Animated, Sept. 1) A touching story about a British man as he forms a bond with his dog Tulip. Christopher Plummer, Lynn Redgrave and Isabella Rossellini provide voices, but the animation is the star. It's simple, yet unorthodox for a modern animated feature.

“Bran Nue Dae” (Comedy, Sept. 10) A high-energy coming-of-age comedy about an Aborigine in Australia. Starring Geoffrey Rush and Rocky McKenzie.

“Kings of Pastry” (Documentary, Sept. 15) A documentary focusing on the Meilleur Ouvrier de France, the most most prestigious of pastry competitions. It should offer up some high tension in the kitchen, genuine emotional moments, and even some laughs.

“Never Let Me Go” (Drama, Sept. 17) Iconic music video director Mark Romanek (a true master of his craft) directs Keira Knightley, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield in this tale of three adults coming to terms with their new reality after growing up in a strict boarding school. With a cast and director like that, odds are this one will be quite good.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” (Drama, Sept. 24) Oliver Stone's sequel to “Wall Street” received mixed word of mouth after premiering at this year's Cannes Film Festival. But I still have a good feeling about this one. Starring Shia LaBeouf and Michael Douglas.





“Howl” (Drama, biopic, Sept. 24) Rob Epstein directs this biopic following the uproar over Allen Ginsberg's poem “Howl.” The subject matter alone makes this one worth watching. The cast, led by James Franco as Ginsberg, is just an added bonus. Mary Louise Parker, Jon Hamm, Jeff Daniels and David Strathairn also star.

“Devil” (Horror, Sept. 17) Five people are trapped in an elevator and one of them is, well, the Devil. The premise should provide enough suspense and mystery.

“Waiting for Superman” (Documentary, Sept. 24) Filmmaker David Guggenheim casts a critical eye on the public school system.

“The Wild Hunt” (Drama, Sept. 24) Hannover House's release shows what happens with the world of live-action roleplaying gets too real. From director Alexandre Franchi.

Movies on the Fence:

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” (Sci-Fi, Sept. 10) And yes, it's in 3-D. The fourth in the “Resident Evil series” marks the return of writer-director-producer Paul W.S. Anderson. Is that a good or bad thing for the franchise?




“A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop"(Foreign drama, Sept. 3) A woman, a gun and a noodle shop – this Hong Kong import has all of that. An Eastern remake of "Blood Simple" from Zhang Yimou ("Curse of the Golden Flower," "Hero") sounds great in theory, but I have doubts about how it will work in practice.

“Legendary” (Sports drama, Sept. 10) WWE superstar John Cena gives dramatic acting a shot in this cookie-cutter sports movie about amateur wrestling. Lucky for Cena, he has powerhouse Patricia Clarkson to work with.

“Easy A” (High school comedy, Sept. 17) Emma Stone stars as Olive, a high-school girl who, as she puts it, “fake rocks” the world of losers. She develops a reputation from her phony trysts and causes controversy around the campus. Penn Badgley, Alyson Michalka and Amanda Bynes also star.

“Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole” (Animated, Sept. 24) By far the favorite in September to succeed at the box office, the “Legend of the Guardians” is going to blow people away with director Zack Snyder's stunning eye for visuals. But Warner Bros. Is looking for much more than just money with this one, they're looking for an animated film Oscar nomination. If “Legend of the Guardians” delivers, it could be within reach.


Movies to skip:


“Going the Distance” (Romantic comedy, Sept. 3) Justin Long and Drew Barrymore are in a long-distance relationship, setting the stage for plenty of stale rom-com jokes.

“We are Family” (Foreign, Sept. 3) An Indian film focusing on one woman trying to keep a severely broken household with her ex-husband and his new wife.

“Logan” (Family, Sept. 10) The younger of two brothers shakes up the school and his relationships with his dreams of becoming a filmmaker.

“The Virginity Hit” (Comedy, Sept. 10) This faux documentary follows a teen on his quest to lose his virginity. It looks more like something that should be on MTV than in theaters.

“Picture Me: A Model's Diary” (Documentary, Sept. 17) A documentary from Ole Schell and Sara Ziff takes a look at the inner world of modeling, but it doesn't really seem offer anything new on the subject.

“Alpha and Omega” (Animated, Sept. 17) Wolves Kate (The alpha, voiced by Hayden Panetierre) and Humphrey (the omega, voiced by Justin Long) are stuck with each other on a nature preserve. An unoriginal story and, what looks like sub par animation, leaves little promise.

“The Trouble With Terkel” (Animated, Sept. 17) A crude, and really poorly animated film from Britain about the problems of sixth-grader Terkel. It looks like something that should have been made 17 years ago, and even then it wouldn't have had any edge.

“You Again” (Romantic comedy, Sept. 24) Kristen Bell stars in what looks like another failed attempt at comedy. After “Couples Retreat” and “When in Rome,” should we expect anything more? This time Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver co-star in a film about high school jealousy and angst that has lingered over years, and in the case of Curtis and Weaver, decades.

“Like Dandelion Dust” (Drama, Sept. 24)  Sentimental, inspirational melodrama abounds in this film about a man fresh out of jail fighting to get back his son who was adopted by a wealthy and stable family. Barry Pepper and Mira Sorvino star.

September’s surprise:

“Catfish” (Documentary, Sept. 17) The advertising team behind this one deserves a pay raise – or maybe “Catfish” is just an easy sell. Word coming out of Sundance is that this film will get people talking, and the trailer seems to back that up. It starts with documenting the talent of an 8-year-old girl who paints and sends it her work to New York photographer Nev Schulman. Nev begins talking to the girl's family, including the girl's sister, Megan, through Facebook.

Nev and Megan develop a web-based relationship, and from there the film takes on a life of its own when Nev goes to rural Michigan to meet Megan – of course, things are not as they seem.

From directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (Nev's friend and brother), “Catfish” should be one of the surprise hits of the fall.

Below is the trailer for “Catfish,” what are your thoughts?




Here are some trailers for other releases that will generate buzz this fall:

Week in Rewind’s Comprehensive Field Guide to Fall Movies 2010: September

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Yes, I know, autumn doesn’t actually start until Wednesday, Sept. 22. But lucky for us, the fall movie season kicks off as soon as the dust settles from the summer blockbusters. As the leaves turn, the movies do too, mostly taking a grittier or smarter tone than some of their summer predecessors in an attempt to grab some early Oscar buzz.

This fall is filled with some clear winners and losers. Despite having a lot of star power (George Clooney, Keira Knightley Ben Affleck, just to name a few), this September's schedule is unlikely to bring in a lot of box office. Outside of “Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole,” there are certainly no guarantees to make money.

Box office aside, below is a list of films for September broken up into four sections: Movies to see, movies on the fence, movies to skip and September's surprise. Check it out, and prepare for fall movies.

September

Movies to See:

“The American” (Thriller, drama, Sept. 1): George Clooney plays an assassin who has retreated into the Italian Countryside. Clooney, the last of a dying breed of true movie stars, doesn’t really make bad movies. The leading roles the star chooses continue to get darker, and “The American” looks to be Clooney’s edgiest yet.

Having director Anton Corbijn (“Control”) behind the camera just gives further reassurance that “The American” is going to set the tone for the rest of the fall season.

“Machete” (Action, Sept. 3)
Simply put, Robert Rodriguez’s latest film, in collaboration with his longtime editing partner Ethan Maniquis, is going to be a lot of fun. But would you expect anything less from the man who brought us “Planet Terror,” “From Dusk Till Dawn” and “Once Upon a Time in Mexico”?

“Machete,” based on Rodriguez’s trailer made for the “Grindhouse” movie experience, stars Danny Trejo as the title character, an ex-Federale who launches an assault seeking revenge on his former employer (Jeff Fahey). Also along for the ride are Jessica Alba, Cheech Marin, Michelle Rodriguez, Robert De Niro, Don Johnson and Steven Seagal ... yes .. that Steven Seagal.

“The Town” (Crime drama, Sept. 17)
When it comes to directing, Ben Affleck sticks to what he knows -- Boston-based crime -- and he does it so well. Following up 2007’s “Gone Baby Gone,” Affleck is adapting yet another successful novel, “Prince of Thieves” by Chuck Hogan.

His model for success hasn’t gone stale, and with a cast featuring himself, Jeremy Renner, Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm and Blake Lively, among many others, there’s a strong chance Affleck will one-up his previous effort with “The Town.”

“Jack Goes Boating” (Comedy, Sept. 17) Philip Seymour Hoffman, an offbeat romantic comedy about Jack (Hoffman), a limo driver, and his budding relationship with Connie (Amy Ryan) after a blind date. As their relationship progresses, the couple who set them up (John Ortiz, Daphne Rubin-Vega) find their marriage falling apart.

Hoffman, one of today's finest actors, has set himself up for a successful start to his directing career with “Jack Goes Boating.” The subject matter is perfect for him, and it will certainly please Philly faithfuls. And if you believe the title, you may also get to see him go boating.

“Buried” (Sept. 24 limited, Oct. 8 wide) Ryan Reynolds is buried alive, and he needs some help. Could he possibly use the powers from his Green Lantern ring to escape? Well, not in this movie, anyway.

With that said, there’s nothing more frightening to a claustrophobe such as myself than being buried alive. Writer Chris Sparling and director Rodrigo Cortes have created a simple, yet undeniably tense premise in “Buried.” Judging by the trailer, they seem to throw the audience right in the coffin with Ryan, a lighter and a cell phone. Sounds like a party to me.

“You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” (Comedy, Sept. 22) At 75, Woody Allen is still writing and directing circles around pretty much everyone. His latest effort follows two married couples, Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) and Helena (Gemma Jones), and their daughter Sally (Naomi Watts) and Roy (Josh Brolin).

The characters, each one their own brand of neurotic, struggle with the intricacies of relationships, anxiety and passion to create what looks like a pretty dark, but golden, comedy. Only Woody Allen could pull it off.

To quote Chicago Sun-Times’ writer Richard Roeper, “Even a relatively slight effort from Woody Allen is galaxies above most modern comedies.” Thankfully, over the past five or so years, Allen has been putting out more than just “slight efforts” -- he has returned to true form. “You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger” will, yet again, be galaxies above most modern comedies.

Movies that show promise:

“My Dog Tulip” (Animated, Sept. 1) A touching story about a British man as he forms a bond with his dog Tulip. Christopher Plummer, Lynn Redgrave and Isabella Rossellini provide voices, but the animation is the star. It's simple, yet unorthodox for a modern animated feature.

“Bran Nue Dae” (Comedy, Sept. 10) A high-energy coming-of-age comedy about an Aborigine in Australia. Starring Geoffrey Rush and Rocky McKenzie.

“Kings of Pastry” (Documentary, Sept. 15) A documentary focusing on the Meilleur Ouvrier de France, the most most prestigious of pastry competitions. It should offer up some high tension in the kitchen, genuine emotional moments, and even some laughs.

“Never Let Me Go” (Drama, Sept. 17) Iconic music video director Mark Romanek (a true master of his craft) directs Keira Knightley, Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield in this tale of three adults coming to terms with their new reality after growing up in a strict boarding school. With a cast and director like that, odds are this one will be quite good.

“Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps” (Drama, Sept. 24) Oliver Stone's sequel to “Wall Street” received mixed word of mouth after premiering at this year's Cannes Film Festival. But I still have a good feeling about this one. Starring Shia LaBeouf and Michael Douglas.





“Howl” (Drama, biopic, Sept. 24) Rob Epstein directs this biopic following the uproar over Allen Ginsberg's poem “Howl.” The subject matter alone makes this one worth watching. The cast, led by James Franco as Ginsberg, is just an added bonus. Mary Louise Parker, Jon Hamm, Jeff Daniels and David Strathairn also star.

“Devil” (Horror, Sept. 17) Five people are trapped in an elevator and one of them is, well, the Devil. The premise should provide enough suspense and mystery.

“Waiting for Superman” (Documentary, Sept. 24) Filmmaker David Guggenheim casts a critical eye on the public school system.

“The Wild Hunt” (Drama, Sept. 24) Hannover House's release shows what happens with the world of live-action roleplaying gets too real. From director Alexandre Franchi.

Movies on the Fence:

“Resident Evil: Afterlife” (Sci-Fi, Sept. 10) And yes, it's in 3-D. The fourth in the “Resident Evil series” marks the return of writer-director-producer Paul W.S. Anderson. Is that a good or bad thing for the franchise?




“A Woman, a Gun, and a Noodle Shop"(Foreign drama, Sept. 3) A woman, a gun and a noodle shop – this Hong Kong import has all of that. An Eastern remake of "Blood Simple" from Zhang Yimou ("Curse of the Golden Flower," "Hero") sounds great in theory, but I have doubts about how it will work in practice.

“Legendary” (Sports drama, Sept. 10) WWE superstar John Cena gives dramatic acting a shot in this cookie-cutter sports movie about amateur wrestling. Lucky for Cena, he has powerhouse Patricia Clarkson to work with.

“Easy A” (High school comedy, Sept. 17) Emma Stone stars as Olive, a high-school girl who, as she puts it, “fake rocks” the world of losers. She develops a reputation from her phony trysts and causes controversy around the campus. Penn Badgley, Alyson Michalka and Amanda Bynes also star.

“Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole” (Animated, Sept. 24) By far the favorite in September to succeed at the box office, the “Legend of the Guardians” is going to blow people away with director Zack Snyder's stunning eye for visuals. But Warner Bros. Is looking for much more than just money with this one, they're looking for an animated film Oscar nomination. If “Legend of the Guardians” delivers, it could be within reach.


Movies to skip:


“Going the Distance” (Romantic comedy, Sept. 3) Justin Long and Drew Barrymore are in a long-distance relationship, setting the stage for plenty of stale rom-com jokes.

“We are Family” (Foreign, Sept. 3) An Indian film focusing on one woman trying to keep a severely broken household with her ex-husband and his new wife.

“Logan” (Family, Sept. 10) The younger of two brothers shakes up the school and his relationships with his dreams of becoming a filmmaker.

“The Virginity Hit” (Comedy, Sept. 10) This faux documentary follows a teen on his quest to lose his virginity. It looks more like something that should be on MTV than in theaters.

“Picture Me: A Model's Diary” (Documentary, Sept. 17) A documentary from Ole Schell and Sara Ziff takes a look at the inner world of modeling, but it doesn't really seem offer anything new on the subject.

“Alpha and Omega” (Animated, Sept. 17) Wolves Kate (The alpha, voiced by Hayden Panetierre) and Humphrey (the omega, voiced by Justin Long) are stuck with each other on a nature preserve. An unoriginal story and, what looks like sub par animation, leaves little promise.

“The Trouble With Terkel” (Animated, Sept. 17) A crude, and really poorly animated film from Britain about the problems of sixth-grader Terkel. It looks like something that should have been made 17 years ago, and even then it wouldn't have had any edge.

“You Again” (Romantic comedy, Sept. 24) Kristen Bell stars in what looks like another failed attempt at comedy. After “Couples Retreat” and “When in Rome,” should we expect anything more? This time Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver co-star in a film about high school jealousy and angst that has lingered over years, and in the case of Curtis and Weaver, decades.

“Like Dandelion Dust” (Drama, Sept. 24)  Sentimental, inspirational melodrama abounds in this film about a man fresh out of jail fighting to get back his son who was adopted by a wealthy and stable family. Barry Pepper and Mira Sorvino star.

September’s surprise:

“Catfish” (Documentary, Sept. 17) The advertising team behind this one deserves a pay raise – or maybe “Catfish” is just an easy sell. Word coming out of Sundance is that this film will get people talking, and the trailer seems to back that up. It starts with documenting the talent of an 8-year-old girl who paints and sends it her work to New York photographer Nev Schulman. Nev begins talking to the girl's family, including the girl's sister, Megan, through Facebook.

Nev and Megan develop a web-based relationship, and from there the film takes on a life of its own when Nev goes to rural Michigan to meet Megan – of course, things are not as they seem.

From directors Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman (Nev's friend and brother), “Catfish” should be one of the surprise hits of the fall.

Below is the trailer for “Catfish,” what are your thoughts?




Here are some trailers for other releases that will generate buzz this fall:

Movie Review: Refocus

"Kung Fu Panda"

By our guest blogger, John Shannon

Editor's note: With new movies coming out every Friday, new DVDs every Tuesday, and nearly a hundred years worth of film history to draw from, it’s easy for some titles to get lost in the shuffle. “ReFocus” is a weekly column detailing a film that for one reason or another deserves revisiting. Whether it’s simply providing further context or taking a second look at a misplaced classic, we’re here to continue the conversation and give films their proper view.

This week…

"Kung Fu Panda"

In modern animation, the two biggest studios right now are PIXAR and DreamWorks. In the past, I’ve alleged that picking a favorite PIXAR movie would be like picking a favorite child; they’re all such incredible films, and classics in their own right. PIXAR goes the extra mile with every one of their movies, refusing to sell out to the lowest common denominator. They move from film to film, challenging themselves and doing something new each time.

Meanwhile, we have DreamWorks, who goes in the opposite direction. They had their first big hit with "Shrek," and have followed that mold to a tee. Pop culture references, sight gags, more jokes than actual plot, and celebrity stunt casting. Movies such as "Over The Hedge" and "Madagascar" are funny upon their first viewing, but they aren’t layered, challenging or even really relevant a few years down the line. The real risk of pop culture references is that after a few years removed, none of the jokes make much sense. The comparison between the two studios could be simplified to this--PIXAR makes films, and DreamWorks makes movies.

In the summer of 2008, DreamWorks and PIXAR both released their tent pole pictures in June. And while "Kung Fu Panda" came out first and did some great business, "WALL-E" came out a few weeks later and just blew everyone away. Leading up to awards season, it’s all anyone talked about. The public fell in love with "WALL-E" and it was certainly expected to win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.

But then the Annie Awards (the awards ceremony for animated films) were held, and "Kung Fu Panda" cleaned house. The flick swept everything right out from under "WALL-E"’s treads.

"Panda" tells the tale of Po (voiced by Jack Black), who spends his time daydreaming about being a martial arts hero when he's not working for his father (James Hong) making and serving noodle soup. Meanwhile, at a nearby temple, the head monk, Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), has had a vision that the power-mad Tai Lung (Ian McShane) will escape from prison and ravage the Valley in his quest for dominance. To stop this, Oogway must discern the one who deserves to become the Dragon Warrior.

There are five obvious candidates, all apprentices to Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman)--Monkey (Jackie Chan), Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Viper (Lucy Liu), Crane (David Cross) and Mantis (Seth Rogen). Yet, as the result of a seemingly random series of events, Oogway chooses Po. This comes as a surprise not only to an outraged Shifu but to his pupils as well. The thought of Po confronting Tai Lung is laughable since the fat panda has trouble making it to the top of the temple's stairs. But soon, hidden talents and hidden pasts are revealed, and it all boils down to a story about people seeing their shortcomings and paying for past mistakes.

The film--somewhat miraculously considering the studio--contains no pop culture references, but tells a complete story in its own separate universe. There aren’t any “wink wink, nudge nudge” moments. The filmmakers treat the story and the world respectfully, and we feel Tai Lung as an actual threat and the characters as real people.

I’ve always liked Jack Black. He seems like an actor who isn’t trying to build a career or move from comedy to drama, but rather a talented guy who just does the movies he wants to do. He never seems bored or tired in any of his films, and at press junkets and events, he’s always excited to be there.

For this film, he dials down his manic persona just enough to come across as enthusiastic but not annoyingly so. The opening sequence perfectly captures his geeky admiration of heroes and as the story moves forward, he gives Po a vulnerability not too many lead characters in animated films have. He knows his shortcomings, and he knows that no one really has much faith in him, so why should he? If Po has a fatal flaw, it’s that he is self-aware. He states aloud “I eat when I’m upset,” and even uses it as a “So, what?” deflective statement. He knows what his problem is, but never got kicked in the ass hard enough to really do anything about it.

And now for the flip side of that coin. Tai Lung is probably one of the best villains in recent memory. He is only in a handful of scenes, but his presence is felt like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" or Scar in "The Lion King." And when he is onscreen, you can’t take your eyes of him. His prison escape sequence is one of the best animated sequences in recent memory, setting him up as a force to be reckoned with and illustrating the type of action scene that can only be realized using animation.

Once his back story is revealed, we see him as the person who was driven, who was told that he would be great, and who was kicked in the ass to do the best he could every day. To give 300 percent. And when all he strove for was denied him, and the person pushing him so hard and so far for so long just turned away and gave up on him, he snapped. And we empathize with him. He was robbed of all meaning. Who wouldn’t lose it? Ian McShane gives him anger and menace but also a real pain beneath it all. His ultimate motivation isn’t the power of the Dragon Warrior, but to make those that turned their backs on him suffer.

And that is Shifu’s shame. He gave Tai Lung the training and the dream, and loved him too much to see what was happening, and when Tai Lung snapped, Shi Fu saw the monster he had created, and vowed never to do so again. He keeps all of his pupils at arm's length, and can barely meditate for his conscience won’t let him. Dustin Hoffman brings a great sense of guilt and remorse to Shifu’s voice, but a stern authority as well. When he finally breaks down and lets Po in, it’s a victory for both of them, and his final confrontation with Tai Lung is just so raw, it’s easily my favorite scene in the film.

If there’s any pitfall the movie falls into, it’s DreamWorks' constant need to cast their films with celebrities. Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, David Cross and Michal Clarke Duncan probably have les then 30 lines between them, and casting Jackie Chan as the monkey who has, literally, two lines is almost insulting. Why get these assorted A- and B-list celebrities for two days in the studio when there are several talented (and cheaper) voice actors looking for work?

Where the casting really shines is with the two least-known supporting actors, James Hong and Randall Duk Kim. Hong plays Po’s father with just the right amount of aloof and care, and the movie never bothers to tell us how a duck fathers a panda. And I honestly don’t care to know. The two have a real bond and a great give and take that works perfectly. Randall Duk Kim assays Oogway in such a way that rivals the greatest screen mentor of al time--Master Yoda. Oogway will easily become your favorite turtle, I can promise you that at least. And he not only cooks up my favorite line of the film, he also has one of the most graceful, accepting deaths in cinema. If only we could all go the way he does.

The film’s story certainly takes several influences from the story of "Star Wars," but the art direction, color palette, camera work and editing all take cues from Chinese culture and their films. Crafted with beautiful watercolors and scored with a Chinese influence, the movie rivals "Mulan" in terms of sheer reverence to China. It’s all splendidly rendered, and I highly recommend a high-def download or Blu-ray purchase if you have the means. But even in standard definition, this movie is just plain beautiful.

The camera work and animation deserve a special shout out. Characters are constantly moving, whether fighting or just in the background, but it isn’t to draw attention to itself or anything of that nature. It is all character-based movement, and the camera moves where no live-action camera could ever go to capture all of it with grace and style. These camera movements are the kinds that Robert Zemeckis is trying to realize with his motion-capture experiments, and I almost wish he would just do an animated feature and get it out of his system. But that’s another rant that will be saved for another time.

Bottom line, “Kung Fu Panda” broke the mold, escaping the mediocrity of DreamWorks’ usual output and is something special. It isn’t a masterpiece or a classic, but it is a fine movie, and a fun viewing for the young at heart.

What do you think? Half the fun is getting in on the conversation, so sound off in the comments below. Whether you agree or disagree your opinion is welcome, and we’d love to hear it.

John Shannon can be reached at refocusjohn@gmail.com

Next week on ReFocus: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”

Movie Review: Refocus

"Kung Fu Panda"

By our guest blogger, John Shannon

Editor's note: With new movies coming out every Friday, new DVDs every Tuesday, and nearly a hundred years worth of film history to draw from, it’s easy for some titles to get lost in the shuffle. “ReFocus” is a weekly column detailing a film that for one reason or another deserves revisiting. Whether it’s simply providing further context or taking a second look at a misplaced classic, we’re here to continue the conversation and give films their proper view.

This week…

"Kung Fu Panda"

In modern animation, the two biggest studios right now are PIXAR and DreamWorks. In the past, I’ve alleged that picking a favorite PIXAR movie would be like picking a favorite child; they’re all such incredible films, and classics in their own right. PIXAR goes the extra mile with every one of their movies, refusing to sell out to the lowest common denominator. They move from film to film, challenging themselves and doing something new each time.

Meanwhile, we have DreamWorks, who goes in the opposite direction. They had their first big hit with "Shrek," and have followed that mold to a tee. Pop culture references, sight gags, more jokes than actual plot, and celebrity stunt casting. Movies such as "Over The Hedge" and "Madagascar" are funny upon their first viewing, but they aren’t layered, challenging or even really relevant a few years down the line. The real risk of pop culture references is that after a few years removed, none of the jokes make much sense. The comparison between the two studios could be simplified to this--PIXAR makes films, and DreamWorks makes movies.

In the summer of 2008, DreamWorks and PIXAR both released their tent pole pictures in June. And while "Kung Fu Panda" came out first and did some great business, "WALL-E" came out a few weeks later and just blew everyone away. Leading up to awards season, it’s all anyone talked about. The public fell in love with "WALL-E" and it was certainly expected to win the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature.

But then the Annie Awards (the awards ceremony for animated films) were held, and "Kung Fu Panda" cleaned house. The flick swept everything right out from under "WALL-E"’s treads.

"Panda" tells the tale of Po (voiced by Jack Black), who spends his time daydreaming about being a martial arts hero when he's not working for his father (James Hong) making and serving noodle soup. Meanwhile, at a nearby temple, the head monk, Master Oogway (Randall Duk Kim), has had a vision that the power-mad Tai Lung (Ian McShane) will escape from prison and ravage the Valley in his quest for dominance. To stop this, Oogway must discern the one who deserves to become the Dragon Warrior.

There are five obvious candidates, all apprentices to Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman)--Monkey (Jackie Chan), Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Viper (Lucy Liu), Crane (David Cross) and Mantis (Seth Rogen). Yet, as the result of a seemingly random series of events, Oogway chooses Po. This comes as a surprise not only to an outraged Shifu but to his pupils as well. The thought of Po confronting Tai Lung is laughable since the fat panda has trouble making it to the top of the temple's stairs. But soon, hidden talents and hidden pasts are revealed, and it all boils down to a story about people seeing their shortcomings and paying for past mistakes.

The film--somewhat miraculously considering the studio--contains no pop culture references, but tells a complete story in its own separate universe. There aren’t any “wink wink, nudge nudge” moments. The filmmakers treat the story and the world respectfully, and we feel Tai Lung as an actual threat and the characters as real people.

I’ve always liked Jack Black. He seems like an actor who isn’t trying to build a career or move from comedy to drama, but rather a talented guy who just does the movies he wants to do. He never seems bored or tired in any of his films, and at press junkets and events, he’s always excited to be there.

For this film, he dials down his manic persona just enough to come across as enthusiastic but not annoyingly so. The opening sequence perfectly captures his geeky admiration of heroes and as the story moves forward, he gives Po a vulnerability not too many lead characters in animated films have. He knows his shortcomings, and he knows that no one really has much faith in him, so why should he? If Po has a fatal flaw, it’s that he is self-aware. He states aloud “I eat when I’m upset,” and even uses it as a “So, what?” deflective statement. He knows what his problem is, but never got kicked in the ass hard enough to really do anything about it.

And now for the flip side of that coin. Tai Lung is probably one of the best villains in recent memory. He is only in a handful of scenes, but his presence is felt like the Joker in "The Dark Knight" or Scar in "The Lion King." And when he is onscreen, you can’t take your eyes of him. His prison escape sequence is one of the best animated sequences in recent memory, setting him up as a force to be reckoned with and illustrating the type of action scene that can only be realized using animation.

Once his back story is revealed, we see him as the person who was driven, who was told that he would be great, and who was kicked in the ass to do the best he could every day. To give 300 percent. And when all he strove for was denied him, and the person pushing him so hard and so far for so long just turned away and gave up on him, he snapped. And we empathize with him. He was robbed of all meaning. Who wouldn’t lose it? Ian McShane gives him anger and menace but also a real pain beneath it all. His ultimate motivation isn’t the power of the Dragon Warrior, but to make those that turned their backs on him suffer.

And that is Shifu’s shame. He gave Tai Lung the training and the dream, and loved him too much to see what was happening, and when Tai Lung snapped, Shi Fu saw the monster he had created, and vowed never to do so again. He keeps all of his pupils at arm's length, and can barely meditate for his conscience won’t let him. Dustin Hoffman brings a great sense of guilt and remorse to Shifu’s voice, but a stern authority as well. When he finally breaks down and lets Po in, it’s a victory for both of them, and his final confrontation with Tai Lung is just so raw, it’s easily my favorite scene in the film.

If there’s any pitfall the movie falls into, it’s DreamWorks' constant need to cast their films with celebrities. Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, David Cross and Michal Clarke Duncan probably have les then 30 lines between them, and casting Jackie Chan as the monkey who has, literally, two lines is almost insulting. Why get these assorted A- and B-list celebrities for two days in the studio when there are several talented (and cheaper) voice actors looking for work?

Where the casting really shines is with the two least-known supporting actors, James Hong and Randall Duk Kim. Hong plays Po’s father with just the right amount of aloof and care, and the movie never bothers to tell us how a duck fathers a panda. And I honestly don’t care to know. The two have a real bond and a great give and take that works perfectly. Randall Duk Kim assays Oogway in such a way that rivals the greatest screen mentor of al time--Master Yoda. Oogway will easily become your favorite turtle, I can promise you that at least. And he not only cooks up my favorite line of the film, he also has one of the most graceful, accepting deaths in cinema. If only we could all go the way he does.

The film’s story certainly takes several influences from the story of "Star Wars," but the art direction, color palette, camera work and editing all take cues from Chinese culture and their films. Crafted with beautiful watercolors and scored with a Chinese influence, the movie rivals "Mulan" in terms of sheer reverence to China. It’s all splendidly rendered, and I highly recommend a high-def download or Blu-ray purchase if you have the means. But even in standard definition, this movie is just plain beautiful.

The camera work and animation deserve a special shout out. Characters are constantly moving, whether fighting or just in the background, but it isn’t to draw attention to itself or anything of that nature. It is all character-based movement, and the camera moves where no live-action camera could ever go to capture all of it with grace and style. These camera movements are the kinds that Robert Zemeckis is trying to realize with his motion-capture experiments, and I almost wish he would just do an animated feature and get it out of his system. But that’s another rant that will be saved for another time.

Bottom line, “Kung Fu Panda” broke the mold, escaping the mediocrity of DreamWorks’ usual output and is something special. It isn’t a masterpiece or a classic, but it is a fine movie, and a fun viewing for the young at heart.

What do you think? Half the fun is getting in on the conversation, so sound off in the comments below. Whether you agree or disagree your opinion is welcome, and we’d love to hear it.

John Shannon can be reached at refocusjohn@gmail.com

Next week on ReFocus: “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”

Top 10 Movies of 2010 Thus Far

By our guest blogger, Rob Stammitti

2010 hasn't had the most immediately satisfying summer movie season, despite some real gems popping up here and there, but a good deal of really solid films has still managed to slip through the cracks this year--some big moneymakers, and a few lesser-known but still totally enjoyable movies. The 10 best films released in 2010 thus far:

"Inception" - This was a shoo-in, really. The captivating ad campaign definitely made it look a few steps above the rest of the fluff getting released this summer, but nothing could prepare one for how completely exhilarating and visually astounding it is. Director Christopher Nolan somehow manages to make a subject matter inherently massive and bombastic and inject it with very low-key emotion and heart, and while doing so, he doesn't sacrifice the spectacle. The folding cities, the endless metropolis dreamscapes, the dreams-within-dreams, the absolutely mindblowing fight in the anti-gravity hotel--Nolan combines everything one looks for in various action movies into one complete whole, and with an excellent ensemble cast forming one of the most oddball "heist" teams we're likely to see and ideas so traditional being made completely new in their execution, Nolan has made one of the finest action films in years with "Inception."

"Toy Story 3" - Pixar really can do no wrong. No studio is more consistent--even Disney in its heyday didn't manage an absolute classic every year--and they've really done something special with their third and presumably final "Toy Story" film. In what is just as much a love letter to their fans as it is to imagination and childhood, Pixar creates a perfect balance of nostalgia, comedy and surprisingly engaging drama, and tells one of the most interesting stories of their 15 or so years in the business. Anyone who doesn't tear up in the last act really has no heart.

"Shutter Island" - Much lie "After Hours" and "The King of Comedy," this film seems destined to be one of Martin Scorsese's more underrated works. "Shutter Island" is Scorsese's second attempt at horror, and he succeeds quite thoroughly by creating one of the most intense and surreal horror films since Kubrick's "The Shining." It seems to take a lot from that film, stylistically, but Scorsese also ingrains the feature with other various genre elements and makes an odd cocktail of a psychological thriller and '50s-era sci-fi. The most incredible thing about the film, though, must be its performances--Leonardo DiCaprio is at the top of his game, but numerous other actors like Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow and Patricia Clarkson steal the show with their brief appearances.

"Youth in Revolt" - Michael Cera is likely to make a bigger splash this year in Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," but he displayed quite a bit of range in this underseen third film of dark comedy master Miguel Arteta. At times, the dialogue can be grating, but Cera's dual role and the countless other hysterical performances make up for any hiccups in the script, and Arteta captures hipster sensibilities while keeping the film down to earth and relatable for those less into the film's more artsy, intellectual endeavors. I think a lot of Cera's critics would find something to like about him here.

"Kick-Ass" - Forget "Iron Man 2"--this is 2010's real standout comic book film. Hilarious, shockingly violent, and just all-around entertaining, "Kick-Ass" took everything great about comic book movies and smashed it all together in one film, making a mockery of the genre all along the way, and giving us Nicolas Cage's best performance in more than a decade.

"Greenberg" - Noah Baumbach has long been the king of misanthropy in comedy, and "Greenberg" is the culmination of his uptight and awkward sensibilities. Ben Stiller gives his best performance--ever--as Greenberg, a shy, anti-social, rude trainwreck, and as we follow him through a few days of painful hilarity and self-realization, Baumbach manages to somehow make us like him despite the urge not to.

"Life During Wartime" - If Noah Baumbach is the king of misanthropy, Todd Solondz is its god. Wholly baffling, bleak and darker than dark, "Wartime" is Solondz's attempt at creating something perhaps more hopeful than his previous work, and despite the wealth of characters we should hate, he makes a film so inherently human that one can't help but like them. Of course, it might be hard to watch for many, but those who really urge themselves to get through it and think about it will definitely be rewarded. It's certainly the most original comedy of the year.

"Splice" - Canadian horror director Vincenzo Natali takes Freudian psychology, scientific controversies and "Frankenstein," and tosses them all together, creating this completely insane but incredibly entertaining psychodrama, and of course he injects his fair share of comedy into the proceedings as well. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are both brilliant as genetic engineers turned would-be parents of their creepy genetic creation, and you definitely get a sense they had just as much fun in front of the camera as we have watching this crazy story unravel.

"Cyrus" - Perhaps the most painfully awkward and realistic comedy ever made. John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill give career-topping performances as a man and a son fighting over one woman, and there has never been writing so down to earth and intimate as the script for this film. Half the time the comedy is all in the reaction one has to what's going on, not the actual events themselves, and as such "Cyrus" is really one of the most unique and bizarre film experiences one is likely to have this year.

"Predators" - There have been a lot of action films released so far this year, but except for "Inception" and "Kick-Ass," which are more effective outside of their action than most action films tend to be, "Predators" is easily the best. The ensemble cast is great, and Adrien Brody miraculously pulls off his tough leading man role perfectly. Laurence Fishburne and Topher Grace also give rather interesting performances, and, of course, the action is just uproariously entertaining, completely reviving the nearly-dead "Predator" series.

Top 10 Movies of 2010 Thus Far

By our guest blogger, Rob Stammitti

2010 hasn't had the most immediately satisfying summer movie season, despite some real gems popping up here and there, but a good deal of really solid films has still managed to slip through the cracks this year--some big moneymakers, and a few lesser-known but still totally enjoyable movies. The 10 best films released in 2010 thus far:

"Inception" - This was a shoo-in, really. The captivating ad campaign definitely made it look a few steps above the rest of the fluff getting released this summer, but nothing could prepare one for how completely exhilarating and visually astounding it is. Director Christopher Nolan somehow manages to make a subject matter inherently massive and bombastic and inject it with very low-key emotion and heart, and while doing so, he doesn't sacrifice the spectacle. The folding cities, the endless metropolis dreamscapes, the dreams-within-dreams, the absolutely mindblowing fight in the anti-gravity hotel--Nolan combines everything one looks for in various action movies into one complete whole, and with an excellent ensemble cast forming one of the most oddball "heist" teams we're likely to see and ideas so traditional being made completely new in their execution, Nolan has made one of the finest action films in years with "Inception."

"Toy Story 3" - Pixar really can do no wrong. No studio is more consistent--even Disney in its heyday didn't manage an absolute classic every year--and they've really done something special with their third and presumably final "Toy Story" film. In what is just as much a love letter to their fans as it is to imagination and childhood, Pixar creates a perfect balance of nostalgia, comedy and surprisingly engaging drama, and tells one of the most interesting stories of their 15 or so years in the business. Anyone who doesn't tear up in the last act really has no heart.

"Shutter Island" - Much lie "After Hours" and "The King of Comedy," this film seems destined to be one of Martin Scorsese's more underrated works. "Shutter Island" is Scorsese's second attempt at horror, and he succeeds quite thoroughly by creating one of the most intense and surreal horror films since Kubrick's "The Shining." It seems to take a lot from that film, stylistically, but Scorsese also ingrains the feature with other various genre elements and makes an odd cocktail of a psychological thriller and '50s-era sci-fi. The most incredible thing about the film, though, must be its performances--Leonardo DiCaprio is at the top of his game, but numerous other actors like Michelle Williams, Max von Sydow and Patricia Clarkson steal the show with their brief appearances.

"Youth in Revolt" - Michael Cera is likely to make a bigger splash this year in Edgar Wright's "Scott Pilgrim vs. The World," but he displayed quite a bit of range in this underseen third film of dark comedy master Miguel Arteta. At times, the dialogue can be grating, but Cera's dual role and the countless other hysterical performances make up for any hiccups in the script, and Arteta captures hipster sensibilities while keeping the film down to earth and relatable for those less into the film's more artsy, intellectual endeavors. I think a lot of Cera's critics would find something to like about him here.

"Kick-Ass" - Forget "Iron Man 2"--this is 2010's real standout comic book film. Hilarious, shockingly violent, and just all-around entertaining, "Kick-Ass" took everything great about comic book movies and smashed it all together in one film, making a mockery of the genre all along the way, and giving us Nicolas Cage's best performance in more than a decade.

"Greenberg" - Noah Baumbach has long been the king of misanthropy in comedy, and "Greenberg" is the culmination of his uptight and awkward sensibilities. Ben Stiller gives his best performance--ever--as Greenberg, a shy, anti-social, rude trainwreck, and as we follow him through a few days of painful hilarity and self-realization, Baumbach manages to somehow make us like him despite the urge not to.

"Life During Wartime" - If Noah Baumbach is the king of misanthropy, Todd Solondz is its god. Wholly baffling, bleak and darker than dark, "Wartime" is Solondz's attempt at creating something perhaps more hopeful than his previous work, and despite the wealth of characters we should hate, he makes a film so inherently human that one can't help but like them. Of course, it might be hard to watch for many, but those who really urge themselves to get through it and think about it will definitely be rewarded. It's certainly the most original comedy of the year.

"Splice" - Canadian horror director Vincenzo Natali takes Freudian psychology, scientific controversies and "Frankenstein," and tosses them all together, creating this completely insane but incredibly entertaining psychodrama, and of course he injects his fair share of comedy into the proceedings as well. Adrien Brody and Sarah Polley are both brilliant as genetic engineers turned would-be parents of their creepy genetic creation, and you definitely get a sense they had just as much fun in front of the camera as we have watching this crazy story unravel.

"Cyrus" - Perhaps the most painfully awkward and realistic comedy ever made. John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill give career-topping performances as a man and a son fighting over one woman, and there has never been writing so down to earth and intimate as the script for this film. Half the time the comedy is all in the reaction one has to what's going on, not the actual events themselves, and as such "Cyrus" is really one of the most unique and bizarre film experiences one is likely to have this year.

"Predators" - There have been a lot of action films released so far this year, but except for "Inception" and "Kick-Ass," which are more effective outside of their action than most action films tend to be, "Predators" is easily the best. The ensemble cast is great, and Adrien Brody miraculously pulls off his tough leading man role perfectly. Laurence Fishburne and Topher Grace also give rather interesting performances, and, of course, the action is just uproariously entertaining, completely reviving the nearly-dead "Predator" series.

M. Night Shyamalan: A Conundrum

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Once in a while, critics take it upon themselves to put someone in their place--when an individual film becomes a secondary concern to a career spiraling out of control. Recently, reviewers stepped in once again to make sure writer-director-producer-oracle M. Night Shyamalan got a mass in-print spanking for “The Last Airbender” a la Ben Affleck post “Gigli” and “Surviving Christmas.”

With Shyamalan, it's an opportunity that many have been waiting for since “Signs” … or “The Village” … or “Lady in the Water,” depending on how quick they jumped off the bandwagon. Either way, Shyamalan has been cruising for this bruising for years now, with many critics referring to the trifecta of “The Village,” “Lady in the Water” and “The Happening” (or as some call it, “The Crappening,” real mature guys) as the beginning of the end for the director.

I strongly disagree with that. It's obvious that M. Night's career was going down when SyFy (formerly known as The Sci-Fi Channel) aired “The Buried Secrets of M. Night Shyamalan.” The hoax claimed after an accident as a boy, M. Night could communicate with spirits. No matter how bad his films are panned, he will never make anything as embarrassing as “The Buried Secrets.” The faux documentary by Nathaniel Kahn, which was made to promote “The Village,” is one secret I'm sure Shyamalan would love to bury. It's definitely worth watching for a laugh.

You could also blame Shyamalan's recent failure on his ego. Or better yet, on the pressure placed on him by studios (and probably himself) to always top his previous efforts--ironically driving his career into the ground in the process. Maybe the source material, “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” isn't easily translatable to film.  “Dragonball Evolution,” another anime-based film, certainly had that problem.

No matter what the reason, it's clear that M. Night is at a crossroads in his career. Critics, and many movie-goers, are at the end of their rope with his shtick. At this point, he has two basic options: Adapt or fade away. I would recommend the latter.

Take two or three years off, relax, and return as a more mature filmmaker who is no longer marred by being on critics' Most Wanted list. If Shyamalan leaps into another project immediately, the Internet will be abuzz with trash talk before it even goes into production. He should wait, and let “The Last Airbender's” dust settle. When he does return, maybe he should delegate some of the responsibilities to others.  You know, like getting someone to polish up the screenplay.

Now, here's my twist ending. No matter what critics say of him, I will stand by this statement: M. Night Shyamalan is a smart man and usually a smart filmmaker. The response to “Airbender” has probably been a humbling experience for him, and I would hope that he's learned something from it. Whatever Shyamalan's next move might be, it's certain that all eyes will be on him yet again.

M. Night Shyamalan: A Conundrum

By our guest blogger, Joel Crabtree

Once in a while, critics take it upon themselves to put someone in their place--when an individual film becomes a secondary concern to a career spiraling out of control. Recently, reviewers stepped in once again to make sure writer-director-producer-oracle M. Night Shyamalan got a mass in-print spanking for “The Last Airbender” a la Ben Affleck post “Gigli” and “Surviving Christmas.”

With Shyamalan, it's an opportunity that many have been waiting for since “Signs” … or “The Village” … or “Lady in the Water,” depending on how quick they jumped off the bandwagon. Either way, Shyamalan has been cruising for this bruising for years now, with many critics referring to the trifecta of “The Village,” “Lady in the Water” and “The Happening” (or as some call it, “The Crappening,” real mature guys) as the beginning of the end for the director.

I strongly disagree with that. It's obvious that M. Night's career was going down when SyFy (formerly known as The Sci-Fi Channel) aired “The Buried Secrets of M. Night Shyamalan.” The hoax claimed after an accident as a boy, M. Night could communicate with spirits. No matter how bad his films are panned, he will never make anything as embarrassing as “The Buried Secrets.” The faux documentary by Nathaniel Kahn, which was made to promote “The Village,” is one secret I'm sure Shyamalan would love to bury. It's definitely worth watching for a laugh.

You could also blame Shyamalan's recent failure on his ego. Or better yet, on the pressure placed on him by studios (and probably himself) to always top his previous efforts--ironically driving his career into the ground in the process. Maybe the source material, “Avatar: The Last Airbender,” isn't easily translatable to film.  “Dragonball Evolution,” another anime-based film, certainly had that problem.

No matter what the reason, it's clear that M. Night is at a crossroads in his career. Critics, and many movie-goers, are at the end of their rope with his shtick. At this point, he has two basic options: Adapt or fade away. I would recommend the latter.

Take two or three years off, relax, and return as a more mature filmmaker who is no longer marred by being on critics' Most Wanted list. If Shyamalan leaps into another project immediately, the Internet will be abuzz with trash talk before it even goes into production. He should wait, and let “The Last Airbender's” dust settle. When he does return, maybe he should delegate some of the responsibilities to others.  You know, like getting someone to polish up the screenplay.

Now, here's my twist ending. No matter what critics say of him, I will stand by this statement: M. Night Shyamalan is a smart man and usually a smart filmmaker. The response to “Airbender” has probably been a humbling experience for him, and I would hope that he's learned something from it. Whatever Shyamalan's next move might be, it's certain that all eyes will be on him yet again.

By our guest blogger, Spencer Morton

5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The sixth installment in the beloved “Harry Potter” series of films is painstakingly unremarkable. Though there are a few well-crafted bits, director David Yates fails to capitalize on many scenes which merit intensity and thrills. Note the part when Draco Malfoy is asked to kill Albus Dumbledore. This should be a no-holds-barred, edge-of-your-seat type scene. It is, instead, rather dull and pedestrian.

The young actors shined once again, and “The Half-Blood Prince” is funny at times. Seeing the chemistry develop between Ron and Hermione and between Harry and Ginny was cute and compelling. That said, the film lacks on so many levels--direction, pace, wonderment--and although all the installments run long, this film’s 2.5 hour running time seems unmerited. Many Harry Potter aficionados hail “Half-Blood Prince” as the most mature, well-crafted film yet. I’m not seeing the magic.

4. Whip It

Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut is like any other film about pissed-off, angst ridden teenagers. Only her film has roller derby! Unfortunately, trading heels for wheels doesn’t help “Whip It” separate itself from its counterparts. It’s simply another well-acted, well-intentioned, clichéd mess.  It might be too early to be coining Barrymore as the next great female director.  Not that anyone is.

Chemistry abounds between all the actors/actresses. I’m guessing everyone involved had a peachy time making the film. The relationships and situations seemed believable enough. It was also nice to see Daniel Stern back in form. However, the movie seemed too light-hearted, too content on taking the conventional way out. “Whip It” could’ve been much darker, much more emotionally gripping, and much more satisfying. Girls all over the world are in situations experienced by Bliss Cavender (Ellen Page). It’s hard to think they’ll be moved by the message given here. “Whip It” needs a more realistic message if it wants to affect real world audiences.

3. Drag Me To Hell

This is not a terrible movie by any means. This is a good, campy, funny horror movie. It isn’t, however, the horror gem that everyone is making it out to be. I don’t even believe this is the resurrection of Sam Raimi, though this is definitely a step up from the “Spiderman” series.

The problem with “Drag Me To Hell” is not that it isn’t scary. It is, at times. It’s not that it isn’t funny. It is. The film just isn’t that engaging. It didn’t have me on the edge of my seat, wondering what was going to happen next. I like my campy horror movies to be uber-campy, like Raimi’s older work. I want to be thinking, “Okay, what other crazy, absurd things will happen next?” This wasn’t doing it for me. A campy horror film needs to work perfectly in order to garner critical praise. “Drag Me to Hell” wasn’t perfectly executed, yet critics loved it. It’s 92% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes absolutely blows my mind. It’s fresh, but not that fresh.

2. Paranormal Activity

I probably would’ve loved this movie if everybody and their mother hadn’t been raving hysterically about it in the weeks up to its release. “Paranormal Activity” was considered by some to be “The scariest movie ever made.” Is it the scariest movie ever made? Absolutely not. Is it a well made movie? Sure. 

“Paranormal Activity” was enjoyable in terms of technique and style, not in terms of scares or spooks. The film was a perfect showcase in how to execute a film using the handheld camera method. While the film did have its creepy parts, the trailer made it seem as if it would send audiences into spooked hysteria at any given moment. Perhaps the film would’ve benefited by some of the action taking place onscreen.

College professors should teach classes on the marketing and promotional techniques used by those behind “Paranormal Activity.” The hype for this film was off the charts. Unfortunately, it didn’t fully deliver.



1. Invictus

As a sports movie, “Invictus” fails miserably. As a look into the political and social atrocities in South Africa and the unity Nelson Mandela brought to the country, “Invictus” equally falters. The film was not only completely un-engaging--it also seemed incomplete.

Many viewers are probably unaware of the turmoil that filled South Africa in the 1990s. Director Clint Eastwood didn’t do much to inform the audience of just how bad it was. Show the atrocities that took place. Show the violence that erupted between the blacks and the whites. Reproduce that hatred and animosity, and make the audience feel it. Make them care about the situation.

“Invictus” would have the viewers believe that after the triumph in the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship, South Africa became all hunky-dory. Not only is that point debatable, but there is no follow-up. South Africa wins the world cup. End of film. What’s the point? What was the result of this amazing feat?

The scenes of the rugby matches were shockingly bad. Here’s a recap of the championship game and how it was shot. Player passes the ball. Player gets tackled, rugby scrum ensues. Team gets close enough to kick a field goal. Team kicks field goal. View sprawling, expansive shots of an obviously CGI crowd. Repeat. Cue boredom.

To top it all off, the performances were just alright. Morgan Freeman played Mandela spot on from all the tapes and interviews I’ve seen of the real Mandela. The praise for his performance is merited. Matt Damon, captain of the South African rugby team, seemed completely uninspired. His character lacked any sort of depth or emotional fire. This movie is drowning in critical praise. To me, it was one of the most unentertaining, unfulfilling movies of the year.

By our guest blogger, Spencer Morton

5. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

The sixth installment in the beloved “Harry Potter” series of films is painstakingly unremarkable. Though there are a few well-crafted bits, director David Yates fails to capitalize on many scenes which merit intensity and thrills. Note the part when Draco Malfoy is asked to kill Albus Dumbledore. This should be a no-holds-barred, edge-of-your-seat type scene. It is, instead, rather dull and pedestrian.

The young actors shined once again, and “The Half-Blood Prince” is funny at times. Seeing the chemistry develop between Ron and Hermione and between Harry and Ginny was cute and compelling. That said, the film lacks on so many levels--direction, pace, wonderment--and although all the installments run long, this film’s 2.5 hour running time seems unmerited. Many Harry Potter aficionados hail “Half-Blood Prince” as the most mature, well-crafted film yet. I’m not seeing the magic.

4. Whip It

Drew Barrymore’s directorial debut is like any other film about pissed-off, angst ridden teenagers. Only her film has roller derby! Unfortunately, trading heels for wheels doesn’t help “Whip It” separate itself from its counterparts. It’s simply another well-acted, well-intentioned, clichéd mess.  It might be too early to be coining Barrymore as the next great female director.  Not that anyone is.

Chemistry abounds between all the actors/actresses. I’m guessing everyone involved had a peachy time making the film. The relationships and situations seemed believable enough. It was also nice to see Daniel Stern back in form. However, the movie seemed too light-hearted, too content on taking the conventional way out. “Whip It” could’ve been much darker, much more emotionally gripping, and much more satisfying. Girls all over the world are in situations experienced by Bliss Cavender (Ellen Page). It’s hard to think they’ll be moved by the message given here. “Whip It” needs a more realistic message if it wants to affect real world audiences.

3. Drag Me To Hell

This is not a terrible movie by any means. This is a good, campy, funny horror movie. It isn’t, however, the horror gem that everyone is making it out to be. I don’t even believe this is the resurrection of Sam Raimi, though this is definitely a step up from the “Spiderman” series.

The problem with “Drag Me To Hell” is not that it isn’t scary. It is, at times. It’s not that it isn’t funny. It is. The film just isn’t that engaging. It didn’t have me on the edge of my seat, wondering what was going to happen next. I like my campy horror movies to be uber-campy, like Raimi’s older work. I want to be thinking, “Okay, what other crazy, absurd things will happen next?” This wasn’t doing it for me. A campy horror film needs to work perfectly in order to garner critical praise. “Drag Me to Hell” wasn’t perfectly executed, yet critics loved it. It’s 92% fresh rating on RottenTomatoes absolutely blows my mind. It’s fresh, but not that fresh.

2. Paranormal Activity

I probably would’ve loved this movie if everybody and their mother hadn’t been raving hysterically about it in the weeks up to its release. “Paranormal Activity” was considered by some to be “The scariest movie ever made.” Is it the scariest movie ever made? Absolutely not. Is it a well made movie? Sure. 

“Paranormal Activity” was enjoyable in terms of technique and style, not in terms of scares or spooks. The film was a perfect showcase in how to execute a film using the handheld camera method. While the film did have its creepy parts, the trailer made it seem as if it would send audiences into spooked hysteria at any given moment. Perhaps the film would’ve benefited by some of the action taking place onscreen.

College professors should teach classes on the marketing and promotional techniques used by those behind “Paranormal Activity.” The hype for this film was off the charts. Unfortunately, it didn’t fully deliver.



1. Invictus

As a sports movie, “Invictus” fails miserably. As a look into the political and social atrocities in South Africa and the unity Nelson Mandela brought to the country, “Invictus” equally falters. The film was not only completely un-engaging--it also seemed incomplete.

Many viewers are probably unaware of the turmoil that filled South Africa in the 1990s. Director Clint Eastwood didn’t do much to inform the audience of just how bad it was. Show the atrocities that took place. Show the violence that erupted between the blacks and the whites. Reproduce that hatred and animosity, and make the audience feel it. Make them care about the situation.

“Invictus” would have the viewers believe that after the triumph in the 1995 Rugby World Cup Championship, South Africa became all hunky-dory. Not only is that point debatable, but there is no follow-up. South Africa wins the world cup. End of film. What’s the point? What was the result of this amazing feat?

The scenes of the rugby matches were shockingly bad. Here’s a recap of the championship game and how it was shot. Player passes the ball. Player gets tackled, rugby scrum ensues. Team gets close enough to kick a field goal. Team kicks field goal. View sprawling, expansive shots of an obviously CGI crowd. Repeat. Cue boredom.

To top it all off, the performances were just alright. Morgan Freeman played Mandela spot on from all the tapes and interviews I’ve seen of the real Mandela. The praise for his performance is merited. Matt Damon, captain of the South African rugby team, seemed completely uninspired. His character lacked any sort of depth or emotional fire. This movie is drowning in critical praise. To me, it was one of the most unentertaining, unfulfilling movies of the year.

By our guest blogger, Rob Stammitti

2009 was a huge year for Sandra Bullock. "The Proposal" and "The Blind Side" are the most financially successful features of her career, bringing in more than $500 million combined, along with bringing Bullock considerably more critical praise than she's had in years. It's safe to say that when it comes to Hollywood, 2009 was definitely Bullock's year.

So, who will conquer Hollywood and the box office in 2010? Well, I can only imagine, but imagine I will. The one man who seems to me to be due for some financial success and some critical praise is none other than everyone's favorite madman (OK, perhaps just my favorite), Nicolas Cage.

To be fair, Cage hasn't had quite the dry spell Bullock had for so many years. But he's spiralled into critical oblivion this decade, and though some of his bigger films tend to bring in some cash, a year of constant hits is what the man needs, especially after the financial concerns he's had lately. I think 2010 is the year for it to happen, with three vastly different but widely accessible features coming our way before year's end.

To start, we've got "Season of the Witch" in March. Cage plays a 14th century Crusader tasked to transport a woman accused of witchcraft to an abbey where monks are expected to list the witch's curse, the plague, from the land. The thriller is directed by "Kalifornia" and "Gone in Sixty Seconds" helmer Dominic Sena, who directed Cage to fiscal success in "Gone in Sixty Seconds" in 2000 and could very well do it again. "Witch" seems like a perfect film to appeal to both the action and horror crowd.

Cage follows it up in April with "Kick-Ass," the latest film from "Layer Cake" and "Stardust" director Matthew Vaughn and, like "Wanted," based on a comic by Mark Millar. It's wild, over-the-top, violent, and from the looks of the trailers, also quite funny, just the kind of thing Cage needs after so many years away from the genre. Cage is at his best in comedy, as he proved in "Raising Arizona" and "Adaptation," so it's about time he returned.

July sees the release of Cage's third and final film this year with Walt Disney's "The Sorcere's Apprentice." Let's be honest here. Whether the film is good or not, which I can't really speculate on just yet, it's a Disney film based on a beloved property. If "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Haunted Mansion" are any indication, this one is tailor-made to make a ton of money. And, like "Kick-Ass," it sees Cage as a much lighter and funnier figure than usual.

So, with those three films coming right in a row, it's hard to imagine Cage won't be making a big financial comeback this year, and if he plays it right, he'll get some attention from critics as well. He's already made a decent start with the not-yet-wide-released "Bad Lieutenant," where he gave one of his best performances, well, ever.

Hey, it's all guesswork, but I have a good feeling for Cage this year. I'm a big supporter of the guy, even at his most cringe-inducing ("Ghost Rider," anyone?). I may be wrong, but it'd be great to see Cage be the Bullock of 2010.

By our guest blogger, Rob Stammitti

2009 was a huge year for Sandra Bullock. "The Proposal" and "The Blind Side" are the most financially successful features of her career, bringing in more than $500 million combined, along with bringing Bullock considerably more critical praise than she's had in years. It's safe to say that when it comes to Hollywood, 2009 was definitely Bullock's year.

So, who will conquer Hollywood and the box office in 2010? Well, I can only imagine, but imagine I will. The one man who seems to me to be due for some financial success and some critical praise is none other than everyone's favorite madman (OK, perhaps just my favorite), Nicolas Cage.

To be fair, Cage hasn't had quite the dry spell Bullock had for so many years. But he's spiralled into critical oblivion this decade, and though some of his bigger films tend to bring in some cash, a year of constant hits is what the man needs, especially after the financial concerns he's had lately. I think 2010 is the year for it to happen, with three vastly different but widely accessible features coming our way before year's end.

To start, we've got "Season of the Witch" in March. Cage plays a 14th century Crusader tasked to transport a woman accused of witchcraft to an abbey where monks are expected to list the witch's curse, the plague, from the land. The thriller is directed by "Kalifornia" and "Gone in Sixty Seconds" helmer Dominic Sena, who directed Cage to fiscal success in "Gone in Sixty Seconds" in 2000 and could very well do it again. "Witch" seems like a perfect film to appeal to both the action and horror crowd.

Cage follows it up in April with "Kick-Ass," the latest film from "Layer Cake" and "Stardust" director Matthew Vaughn and, like "Wanted," based on a comic by Mark Millar. It's wild, over-the-top, violent, and from the looks of the trailers, also quite funny, just the kind of thing Cage needs after so many years away from the genre. Cage is at his best in comedy, as he proved in "Raising Arizona" and "Adaptation," so it's about time he returned.

July sees the release of Cage's third and final film this year with Walt Disney's "The Sorcere's Apprentice." Let's be honest here. Whether the film is good or not, which I can't really speculate on just yet, it's a Disney film based on a beloved property. If "Pirates of the Caribbean" and "The Haunted Mansion" are any indication, this one is tailor-made to make a ton of money. And, like "Kick-Ass," it sees Cage as a much lighter and funnier figure than usual.

So, with those three films coming right in a row, it's hard to imagine Cage won't be making a big financial comeback this year, and if he plays it right, he'll get some attention from critics as well. He's already made a decent start with the not-yet-wide-released "Bad Lieutenant," where he gave one of his best performances, well, ever.

Hey, it's all guesswork, but I have a good feeling for Cage this year. I'm a big supporter of the guy, even at his most cringe-inducing ("Ghost Rider," anyone?). I may be wrong, but it'd be great to see Cage be the Bullock of 2010.

By our guest blogger, Spencer Morton

I was never much for New Year’s resolutions. I’d always hit the gym for a few weeks, but then I’d decide that just eating a chocolate donut would be more fun. So to usher in 2010, I’ve made some resolutions for actors who need a little jumpstart. The following actors have shown a great amount of talent and potential, but their movie choices in the recent past have been questionable at best.

The likes of Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan will not be on this list because, as previously stated, having talent is one of the requirements. It must be tough for Hilton knowing that her best-known film was 2003’s hour-long, night-vision sexual rendezvous, which received a wide release on computers all over the world. It was like “Quarantine” or “Paranormal Activity,” only not as scary…or was it scarier?

But I digress…

Here’s to hoping these actors can turn things around in 2010:

John Turturro

This guy needs to pick up a phonebook and look up either Joel or Ethan Coen. They bring out the best in Turturro. “Barton Fink” proved that he can be a seriously effective lead actor, and “The Big Lebowski” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou” showcase his skills in a supporting role. His role as Pete in “O Brother” was one of the most underrated performances of 2000. Since that film, Turturro has had a rough go of it.

He hooked up with Adam Sandler a couple times for 2002's “Mr. Deeds” and in 2003's “Anger Management." He was funny, but got lost in the sea of stupid Sandler jokes. He was solidly creepy in 2004’s “Secret Window,” but was overshadowed by Johnny Depp’s quirkiness and manic mannerisms. Recently, it’s been real bad. Supporting roles in the “Transformers” series, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” (again with Sandler), and “What Just Happened” have shown his judgment is at an all-time low. A bit part in 2008’s God-awful “Miracle at St. Anna” didn’t help. His performances are getting smaller and the movies he’s in are getting worse.

Pick up the phone book John….pick it up.

Robert De Niro

We all know what the two-time Oscar winner is capable of doing onscreen, so I won’t elaborate on that. De Niro was basically the God of film acting in the '70s, '80s and '90s. However, watching him act now is deeply aggravating. Ever since 2000, when he played Fearless Leader in “The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle,” things haven’t been the same. Damn squirrel and moose.

Since that debacle, De Niro has been in a slew of boring thrillers (“Hide and Seek,” “15 Minutes,” “Righteous Kill”), unfunny comedies (“Showtime,” “Meet the Fockers,” “Analyze That,” “What Just Happened”), and “Stardust,” for which I can’t find a fitting, appropriate adjectives. His "comeback" was supposed to be 2009’s “Everybody’s Fine.” Academy and Globe folks were pushing hard to get him a lead actor nomination, but sane people realized the movie was below-average and his performance was just okay.

Hopefully 2010 can bring life to a dying career. De Niro has got a part in the much anticipated Robert Rodriguez flick “Machete,” but than again, so do Steven Seagal and Lindsay Lohan.

Sharon Stone

Once the sex-symbol of the late '80s and '90s, this actress is now a ghost. Her bold, sexy performance in 1991’s “Basic Instinct” made this seductive blonde a household name. In 1995, Stone won a Golden Globe and garnered an Oscar nomination for her role in Martin Scorsese’s “Casino.” She was at the height of her acting career.

And then she disappeared.

She fell out of the mainstream for reasons unknown and decided the best way to resurrect her career was to star in 2004’s “Catwoman.” Her Razzie nomination shows how well that turned out. She compounded that mistake in 2006 by starring in “Basic Instinct 2.” This time she brought home the Razzie award for worst actress. Since then, she’s joined Cuba Gooding Jr. in the world of straight-to-DVD films.

Stone was admired and respected for her gritty, seductive, strong characters. Somewhere, it was lost along the way. 2010 doesn’t look hopeful. It looks as if she has a few more stinkers on the way, but a comeback is always possible. Crazier things have happened.

Forest Whitaker

Whitaker is a bit of a conundrum. He deservedly won the lead actor Oscar in 2006 for his portrayal of Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland.” His performance was eccentric and terrifying; one of the best of the decade. He also has the dubious honor of starring in 2000’s “Battlefield Earth,” a major contender in any ‘worst movies ever’ list.

Unbeknownst to many, Whitaker also is the reigning heavyweight champion of the “ensemble-cast, intertwined-lives, chain-reaction movie” world. He’s been in four them since 2007 (“The Air I Breathe,” “Vantage Point,” “Winged Creatures,” “Powder Blue”). “Vantage Point” is the only one of those films that didn’t go straight to DVD in the United States.

Perhaps he caught lightning in a bottle with “The Last King of Scotland.” He’s been in some other decent movies, and his performances are always solid. He just hasn’t done anything else great. 2010 looks pretty packed for Whitaker. He’ll be starring in “Repo Men,” which looks promising.

One thing is for sure, if he doesn't pick it up soon, it'll be time for him to trade in that title belt and pass the reins.

Jennifer Connelly

Oh yeah…Jennifer Connelly--I remember her! If you thought that when you saw her name, you’re probably not in the minority. Connelly is one of the most attractive and likeable actresses in Hollywood. She’s has  major acting chops, too. Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 movie, “Requiem for a Dream,” gave her the critical acclaim she deserved. Her gritty performance as a tormented drug addict put her on the map as a legitimate lead actress. The next year, she followed that performance up by playing Alicia Nash in “A Beautiful Mind.” She walked away with an Academy Award for that emotional portrayal of a caring, neglected wife.

She continued her solid roles up until 2007. She starred opposite Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Ruffalo in “Reservation Road,” which is a powerful, underrated film. It was featured terrific acting. Things have since gone sour. 2008’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is one of the most unnecessary films in recent memory. 2009's “He’s Just Not That Into You” didn’t help her career as she seemed lost in a sea of other young talent.

Apart from her many of her counterparts on this list, 2010 looks promising for Connelly. She’ll star as Emma Darwin in “Creation,” the story of the internal struggles that Charles Darwin encountered. The film already has been released overseas, but will hit the U.S. on January 22. She also will portray the psychologically disturbed Virginia in “What’s Wrong with Virginia?” The film is directed by Dustin Lance Black, who penned 2008’s “Milk.” Let’s see if Connelly can avoid the labyrinth of poor films to which too many talented actresses fall victim.

Cuba Gooding Jr.

Talk about a major downfall. Gooding Jr. cashed in some terrific performances in the mid to late '90s. He won the best supporting actor Oscar in 1996 for “Jerry Maguire.” He shined in 1997 in “As Good as It Gets” and in 1998 with “What Dreams May Come.” His charisma and huge smile took hold of audiences all over.

The 2000s haven’t been kind to Gooding Jr. in any way, shape or form. It’s been a decade full of straight-to-DVD garbage and terrible comedies. On the rare occasion one of his films hits theaters, audiences everywhere cringe in fear.  To wit, see “Daddy Day Camp” or “Norbit.”

I’m not entirely sure what Gooding Jr. needs to do to get back on track. He may be beyond the point of no return. He had a small role in the high profile “American Gangster,” but that didn’t lead to anything significant. Reports released today say Gooding Jr. is one actor on Hollywood producer’s short-list to play Tiger Woods in a possible movie about the athlete’s fall from grace.

By our guest blogger, Spencer Morton

I was never much for New Year’s resolutions. I’d always hit the gym for a few weeks, but then I’d decide that just eating a chocolate donut would be more fun. So to usher in 2010, I’ve made some resolutions for actors who need a little jumpstart. The following actors have shown a great amount of talent and potential, but their movie choices in the recent past have been questionable at best.

The likes of Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan will not be on this list because, as previously stated, having talent is one of the requirements. It must be tough for Hilton knowing that her best-known film was 2003’s hour-long, night-vision sexual rendezvous, which received a wide release on computers all over the world. It was like “Quarantine” or “Paranormal Activity,” only not as scary…or was it scarier?

But I digress…

Here’s to hoping these actors can turn things around in 2010:

John Turturro

This guy needs to pick up a phonebook and look up either Joel or Ethan Coen. They bring out the best in Turturro. “Barton Fink” proved that he can be a seriously effective lead actor, and “The Big Lebowski” and “O Brother, Where Art Thou” showcase his skills in a supporting role. His role as Pete in “O Brother” was one of the most underrated performances of 2000. Since that film, Turturro has had a rough go of it.

He hooked up with Adam Sandler a couple times for 2002's “Mr. Deeds” and in 2003's “Anger Management." He was funny, but got lost in the sea of stupid Sandler jokes. He was solidly creepy in 2004’s “Secret Window,” but was overshadowed by Johnny Depp’s quirkiness and manic mannerisms. Recently, it’s been real bad. Supporting roles in the “Transformers” series, “You Don’t Mess with the Zohan” (again with Sandler), and “What Just Happened” have shown his judgment is at an all-time low. A bit part in 2008’s God-awful “Miracle at St. Anna” didn’t help. His performances are getting smaller and the movies he’s in are getting worse.

Pick up the phone book John….pick it up.

Robert De Niro

We all know what the two-time Oscar winner is capable of doing onscreen, so I won’t elaborate on that. De Niro was basically the God of film acting in the '70s, '80s and '90s. However, watching him act now is deeply aggravating. Ever since 2000, when he played Fearless Leader in “The Adventures of Rocky & Bullwinkle,” things haven’t been the same. Damn squirrel and moose.

Since that debacle, De Niro has been in a slew of boring thrillers (“Hide and Seek,” “15 Minutes,” “Righteous Kill”), unfunny comedies (“Showtime,” “Meet the Fockers,” “Analyze That,” “What Just Happened”), and “Stardust,” for which I can’t find a fitting, appropriate adjectives. His "comeback" was supposed to be 2009’s “Everybody’s Fine.” Academy and Globe folks were pushing hard to get him a lead actor nomination, but sane people realized the movie was below-average and his performance was just okay.

Hopefully 2010 can bring life to a dying career. De Niro has got a part in the much anticipated Robert Rodriguez flick “Machete,” but than again, so do Steven Seagal and Lindsay Lohan.

Sharon Stone

Once the sex-symbol of the late '80s and '90s, this actress is now a ghost. Her bold, sexy performance in 1991’s “Basic Instinct” made this seductive blonde a household name. In 1995, Stone won a Golden Globe and garnered an Oscar nomination for her role in Martin Scorsese’s “Casino.” She was at the height of her acting career.

And then she disappeared.

She fell out of the mainstream for reasons unknown and decided the best way to resurrect her career was to star in 2004’s “Catwoman.” Her Razzie nomination shows how well that turned out. She compounded that mistake in 2006 by starring in “Basic Instinct 2.” This time she brought home the Razzie award for worst actress. Since then, she’s joined Cuba Gooding Jr. in the world of straight-to-DVD films.

Stone was admired and respected for her gritty, seductive, strong characters. Somewhere, it was lost along the way. 2010 doesn’t look hopeful. It looks as if she has a few more stinkers on the way, but a comeback is always possible. Crazier things have happened.

Forest Whitaker

Whitaker is a bit of a conundrum. He deservedly won the lead actor Oscar in 2006 for his portrayal of Idi Amin in “The Last King of Scotland.” His performance was eccentric and terrifying; one of the best of the decade. He also has the dubious honor of starring in 2000’s “Battlefield Earth,” a major contender in any ‘worst movies ever’ list.

Unbeknownst to many, Whitaker also is the reigning heavyweight champion of the “ensemble-cast, intertwined-lives, chain-reaction movie” world. He’s been in four them since 2007 (“The Air I Breathe,” “Vantage Point,” “Winged Creatures,” “Powder Blue”). “Vantage Point” is the only one of those films that didn’t go straight to DVD in the United States.

Perhaps he caught lightning in a bottle with “The Last King of Scotland.” He’s been in some other decent movies, and his performances are always solid. He just hasn’t done anything else great. 2010 looks pretty packed for Whitaker. He’ll be starring in “Repo Men,” which looks promising.

One thing is for sure, if he doesn't pick it up soon, it'll be time for him to trade in that title belt and pass the reins.

Jennifer Connelly

Oh yeah…Jennifer Connelly--I remember her! If you thought that when you saw her name, you’re probably not in the minority. Connelly is one of the most attractive and likeable actresses in Hollywood. She’s has  major acting chops, too. Darren Aronofsky’s 2000 movie, “Requiem for a Dream,” gave her the critical acclaim she deserved. Her gritty performance as a tormented drug addict put her on the map as a legitimate lead actress. The next year, she followed that performance up by playing Alicia Nash in “A Beautiful Mind.” She walked away with an Academy Award for that emotional portrayal of a caring, neglected wife.

She continued her solid roles up until 2007. She starred opposite Joaquin Phoenix and Mark Ruffalo in “Reservation Road,” which is a powerful, underrated film. It was featured terrific acting. Things have since gone sour. 2008’s “The Day the Earth Stood Still” is one of the most unnecessary films in recent memory. 2009's “He’s Just Not That Into You” didn’t help her career as she seemed lost in a sea of other young talent.

Apart from her many of her counterparts on this list, 2010 looks promising for Connelly. She’ll star as Emma Darwin in “Creation,” the story of the internal struggles that Charles Darwin encountered. The film already has been released overseas, but will hit the U.S. on January 22. She also will portray the psychologically disturbed Virginia in “What’s Wrong with Virginia?” The film is directed by Dustin Lance Black, who penned 2008’s “Milk.” Let’s see if Connelly can avoid the labyrinth of poor films to which too many talented actresses fall victim.

Cuba Gooding Jr.

Talk about a major downfall. Gooding Jr. cashed in some terrific performances in the mid to late '90s. He won the best supporting actor Oscar in 1996 for “Jerry Maguire.” He shined in 1997 in “As Good as It Gets” and in 1998 with “What Dreams May Come.” His charisma and huge smile took hold of audiences all over.

The 2000s haven’t been kind to Gooding Jr. in any way, shape or form. It’s been a decade full of straight-to-DVD garbage and terrible comedies. On the rare occasion one of his films hits theaters, audiences everywhere cringe in fear.  To wit, see “Daddy Day Camp” or “Norbit.”

I’m not entirely sure what Gooding Jr. needs to do to get back on track. He may be beyond the point of no return. He had a small role in the high profile “American Gangster,” but that didn’t lead to anything significant. Reports released today say Gooding Jr. is one actor on Hollywood producer’s short-list to play Tiger Woods in a possible movie about the athlete’s fall from grace.

By our guest blogger, Gavin Stone.

Okay folks, it’s time to actually look at the movie on everyone’s mind – James Cameron’s "Avatar." The promotional juggernaut over at Fox is in full swing for this movie and its release date is looming on the horizon. Still, what should we expect from this movie? I will tell you what I expect. I expect another "Independence Day." That was a fun movie the first time you saw it, but it just got so ludicrous that by the end, you felt cheated. Everyone will flock to see "Avatar," but they ultimately will be disappointed. "Avatar" may look all good and shiny on the surface, but what does it really contain that will make it a blockbuster that will last? I think we all may be in for a disappointment and here is why I think "Avatar" may not be all it is cracked up to be.

1- Relying on too much hype
Let’s face it--there isn’t anyone out there who hasn’t heard of this movie in some form or fashion. The little movie that’s been made over the course of a few years with so much secrecy is bound to be on quite a few people’s lips. It is my opinion that this is purposeful hype meant to draw more attention to the movie because the studio has sunk a lot of money into it and they may be afraid that it will not be what everyone else is expecting to see. I mean, they even had an "Avatar" day a few months back where you could go see a scene from the movie! Who does this? What is the purpose? The purpose is to create a hype. Any movie relying on such a heavy hype train has issues, and it can never meet up to any expectations.

2- It’s being pushed hardcore to kids
To date, I have seen about 50 commercials for this movie on the Cartoon Network. Compared to the one I have seen on regular non-children’s TV, that is a sure sign that this is a kids movie. Or at least they are targeting the younger market. Which makes sense since they are about to flood the market with toys from the movie. Where is there a problem in this? Well, when you pitch this awesome grown-up movie that really is secretly a kids movie something will backfire. Didn’t anyone learn from "Coyote Ugly," the movie pitched to guys that was secretly a chick flick? I know I don’t want to go into the theater expecting a hardcore action fest only to be treated to a family-friendly affair.


3- The Navi are like cute cat creatures
Why is it that the friendly aliens in movies look kinda cute? I guess my problem is not that they are cats, but that they are just far too cute. Where is the alien-ness in them? They look like werecats? Heck, they should just call the planet Pandora something more fitting--like Thundara--instead. And did I mention cute? It’s like a Don Bluth film--no matter how awesome the idea is, it will get ruined by the overly cute character designs. To me, when I think of jungle dwelling aliens, I think a little more rugged and primitive. Something with menace to them. The only thing menacing about the Navi is that they may still have some kitty litter under their claws.


4- The story is clichéd
Come on, guy goes to infiltrate the enemy only to become one with them. Is this honestly the best Cameron could do? Where are the surprises? How will we all feel going into a movie only to already know all about it? Again, another product of the hype--the story is out. Where is the great storytelling from "Aliens" or "Titanic"? The idea of "Avatar" screams something original but is presented as lackluster. I bet they are hoping the effects will cover it all up.


5- The 3-D will be too much
Yes, 3-D may be the future of cinema, but too few theaters are equipped with the proper technology to show 3-D movies. When a movie is made specifically for 3-D, something gets lost in a traditional 2-D showing. There’s that ‘wow’ factor that just doesn’t come across. Not enough movies use 3-D as a way to draw you into the movie; instead, it's more like being on a theme park ride. "Avatar" may be that former type of movie that uses the 3-D to bring you deeper into the story, but what about all of those folks who can’t see it that way? Their experience of the movie may not be as good as those who see it the way it was meant to be seen. This will cause poor word of mouth, and since there are more 2-D screens in the world than 3-D screens, that’s a lot of word of mouths!

6- The details of the movie will be lost on screens not digital-ready
Like 3-D, the sheer amount of detail in this movie will be lost on a regular screen shot with a standard projector. What a waste. Most people more than likely will not realize this, but those who see it in the best format possible will have a much better viewing experience. On the downside, they may also be over-loaded sensory wise--so much to take in in such little time. I feel very much that the visual elements of this movie are crucial to the experience since so much time has been spent to make the world of Pandora.

7- People have weapons, cats have animals
I will never understand how the Ewoks won Endor with some sticks and stones. I have a feeling I will have that same reaction here. You can tell that the Navi only have "organic" weapons like sticks and wild beasts. Do they really think they will be able to put up a fight against heavily armed and dangerous humans?

8- The studio is banking on James Cameron’s name too much
Don't get me wrong, I love James Cameron. He is one of my favorite directors. Yet if a movie cannot fly on its own merit, without having to be associated with a director, then there is something wrong with the movie. They are expecting you to go, “Oh, the guy who made Titanic?” when they show you the title of the movie, “James Cameron’s Avatar."  As such, we are all supposed to instantly think this must be good. Not a good sign. But it works! People just look at it through rose-colored glasses. I know this, I have done it too on occasion.


9- It missed its original release date by a long shot
Did you know this movie was supposed to come out last year? I guess it just wasn’t ready. Why? Well, when most movies miss their release date, it is because they need some more work. In short, the movie sucked. Time to rework it to make it less an abomination. Could this be the reason the original launch date was missed?


10- It is a better summer movie
Christmas is not a time for big ol’ blockbusters. It is a time when people feel the need to see happy, feel-good movies. More people spend time at home in the winter, and December is, quite frankly, the biggest, most busy month of them all. Yeah, the holiday movie season is pretty big, but look at the fare presented every year! It's all about family movies, movies related to the holidays, and happy-go-lucky good times movies. There is a reason studios schedule their best blockbusters for the summer--there is a better crowd then.

Do you agree?  Let Stone know!

Below is the trailer for "Avatar."

By our guest blogger, Gavin Stone.

Okay folks, it’s time to actually look at the movie on everyone’s mind – James Cameron’s "Avatar." The promotional juggernaut over at Fox is in full swing for this movie and its release date is looming on the horizon. Still, what should we expect from this movie? I will tell you what I expect. I expect another "Independence Day." That was a fun movie the first time you saw it, but it just got so ludicrous that by the end, you felt cheated. Everyone will flock to see "Avatar," but they ultimately will be disappointed. "Avatar" may look all good and shiny on the surface, but what does it really contain that will make it a blockbuster that will last? I think we all may be in for a disappointment and here is why I think "Avatar" may not be all it is cracked up to be.

1- Relying on too much hype
Let’s face it--there isn’t anyone out there who hasn’t heard of this movie in some form or fashion. The little movie that’s been made over the course of a few years with so much secrecy is bound to be on quite a few people’s lips. It is my opinion that this is purposeful hype meant to draw more attention to the movie because the studio has sunk a lot of money into it and they may be afraid that it will not be what everyone else is expecting to see. I mean, they even had an "Avatar" day a few months back where you could go see a scene from the movie! Who does this? What is the purpose? The purpose is to create a hype. Any movie relying on such a heavy hype train has issues, and it can never meet up to any expectations.

2- It’s being pushed hardcore to kids
To date, I have seen about 50 commercials for this movie on the Cartoon Network. Compared to the one I have seen on regular non-children’s TV, that is a sure sign that this is a kids movie. Or at least they are targeting the younger market. Which makes sense since they are about to flood the market with toys from the movie. Where is there a problem in this? Well, when you pitch this awesome grown-up movie that really is secretly a kids movie something will backfire. Didn’t anyone learn from "Coyote Ugly," the movie pitched to guys that was secretly a chick flick? I know I don’t want to go into the theater expecting a hardcore action fest only to be treated to a family-friendly affair.


3- The Navi are like cute cat creatures
Why is it that the friendly aliens in movies look kinda cute? I guess my problem is not that they are cats, but that they are just far too cute. Where is the alien-ness in them? They look like werecats? Heck, they should just call the planet Pandora something more fitting--like Thundara--instead. And did I mention cute? It’s like a Don Bluth film--no matter how awesome the idea is, it will get ruined by the overly cute character designs. To me, when I think of jungle dwelling aliens, I think a little more rugged and primitive. Something with menace to them. The only thing menacing about the Navi is that they may still have some kitty litter under their claws.


4- The story is clichéd
Come on, guy goes to infiltrate the enemy only to become one with them. Is this honestly the best Cameron could do? Where are the surprises? How will we all feel going into a movie only to already know all about it? Again, another product of the hype--the story is out. Where is the great storytelling from "Aliens" or "Titanic"? The idea of "Avatar" screams something original but is presented as lackluster. I bet they are hoping the effects will cover it all up.


5- The 3-D will be too much
Yes, 3-D may be the future of cinema, but too few theaters are equipped with the proper technology to show 3-D movies. When a movie is made specifically for 3-D, something gets lost in a traditional 2-D showing. There’s that ‘wow’ factor that just doesn’t come across. Not enough movies use 3-D as a way to draw you into the movie; instead, it's more like being on a theme park ride. "Avatar" may be that former type of movie that uses the 3-D to bring you deeper into the story, but what about all of those folks who can’t see it that way? Their experience of the movie may not be as good as those who see it the way it was meant to be seen. This will cause poor word of mouth, and since there are more 2-D screens in the world than 3-D screens, that’s a lot of word of mouths!

6- The details of the movie will be lost on screens not digital-ready
Like 3-D, the sheer amount of detail in this movie will be lost on a regular screen shot with a standard projector. What a waste. Most people more than likely will not realize this, but those who see it in the best format possible will have a much better viewing experience. On the downside, they may also be over-loaded sensory wise--so much to take in in such little time. I feel very much that the visual elements of this movie are crucial to the experience since so much time has been spent to make the world of Pandora.

7- People have weapons, cats have animals
I will never understand how the Ewoks won Endor with some sticks and stones. I have a feeling I will have that same reaction here. You can tell that the Navi only have "organic" weapons like sticks and wild beasts. Do they really think they will be able to put up a fight against heavily armed and dangerous humans?

8- The studio is banking on James Cameron’s name too much
Don't get me wrong, I love James Cameron. He is one of my favorite directors. Yet if a movie cannot fly on its own merit, without having to be associated with a director, then there is something wrong with the movie. They are expecting you to go, “Oh, the guy who made Titanic?” when they show you the title of the movie, “James Cameron’s Avatar."  As such, we are all supposed to instantly think this must be good. Not a good sign. But it works! People just look at it through rose-colored glasses. I know this, I have done it too on occasion.


9- It missed its original release date by a long shot
Did you know this movie was supposed to come out last year? I guess it just wasn’t ready. Why? Well, when most movies miss their release date, it is because they need some more work. In short, the movie sucked. Time to rework it to make it less an abomination. Could this be the reason the original launch date was missed?


10- It is a better summer movie
Christmas is not a time for big ol’ blockbusters. It is a time when people feel the need to see happy, feel-good movies. More people spend time at home in the winter, and December is, quite frankly, the biggest, most busy month of them all. Yeah, the holiday movie season is pretty big, but look at the fare presented every year! It's all about family movies, movies related to the holidays, and happy-go-lucky good times movies. There is a reason studios schedule their best blockbusters for the summer--there is a better crowd then.

Do you agree?  Let Stone know!

Below is the trailer for "Avatar."

By our guest blogger, Jeremy Wilkinson

If you’ve been in a theater lately, you know it’s a good time to be a comic book fan. "Iron Man," the first two "Spider-Man" films, "30 Days of Night" and "The Dark Knight" are among the many great comic book adaptations to be produced in recent years. So, if filmmakers can adapt comic books and actually do justice to the source material, why can’t they do the same for games?

Hollywood keeps attempting to successfully create a great video game movie, but most of the time the movie falls flat on its face. Most video game movies are neither faithful adaptations of the source material nor are they good movies, independent of what they are based on. In fact, I find myself saying, “It was an okay sci-fi movie” or “It was an okay action movie” in regards to a few of these films. Quite honestly, these are the best compliments I can bring myself to give these movies. Why are they so bad? Maybe Hollywood doesn’t take the genre seriously yet, maybe it’s just bad luck, or maybe those making the movies only see them as cash cows.

Take "Super Mario Bros." In the late '80s and early '90s, Mario was everywhere. The first Mario Bros. game was a gigantic hit for Nintendo and spawned a franchise that still is around today. This was the first time Hollywood thought, “Hey! We can make money if we adapted this!” So, they took an amazing game and made it into a movie.  A very bad movie.

What could have been an Alice in Wonderland-esque family hit became sub-par film set in a dreary (though somewhat comedic) dystopia. Don’t get me wrong, dystopias are great…but why make that kind of change? That was not the only change.  Oh, no. In the game, Bowser is a fire-breathing turtle. In the movie, he’s a human (more or less) descended from the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The goombas went from mushroom people to reptile people. And Yoshi? Okay--he was still cute. The movie is not a good film on its own and it made changes to the source material that did not add to the film, but instead detracted from it. This turned out to be a running theme for movies based on games.

"Super Mario Bros." went down in history as one terrible movie. If you’ve seen it, you know why. The following year, two other live-action adaptations made it to the screen: "Double Dragon" and "Street Fighter." These movies were a one-two punch of cinematic blandness that should have made people realize that things needed to change. Both suffered from the same cardinal sins that the "Mario" movie did--they changed important aspects of the source material and were not good movies on their own. It’s too bad, too, since both movies had good enough actors as the lead villains.

Robert Patrick played Koga in "Double Dragon," but has none of the menace he had in "Terminator 2." In fact, he seems to not even be trying--it’s like he realized how bad the whole thing was after he had signed on for the picture and then gave up. At least Raul Julia (as M. Bison in "Street Fighter") does his best with what’s given to him--even if the writing was atrocious.  His character would bellow, “I’m going to take over the world!” Yes, because that is a legitimate goal in life. Why put that kind of pressure on yourself? Look at pictures of George Bush before and after his presidential term--and he only had to run a country! The logical loopholes in these films are astounding. Did the filmmakers say to themselves: “Children love video games.  Let’s make these movies childish!”

The one good thing about these movies is that one can watch them for their cheesy qualities. Sure, they’re bad, but some at least can be entertaining because of how bad they are.

As the years passed, more games were adapted into films. "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" were two of the three best (the third will be discussed later), which is kind of sad to say. Even though I like the movies, they still are average movies. And while "Mortal Kombat" kept most of the important aspects of the game in translation, "Resident Evil" eschewed the main characters from the game and replaced them with an original character. It was an okay action-zombie movie, but a bad "Resident Evil" movie.

In 2003, the world of video game adaptations changed forever. When "House of the Dead" was released, it introduced gamers to the soul-sucking parasite that is director Uwe Boll. Compared to the cinematic garbage of Boll, Ed Wood looks like Guillermo del Toro. Like Hitchcock, he treats source material as a treatment. But Hitchcock’s changes elevate his films whereas Boll’s changes murder his films. The sad thing is that Boll keeps getting the rights to make movies based on video games. "Alone in the Dark," "Dungeon Siege," "Zombie Massacre," "Postal" and "Bloodrayne" (with its second sequel on the way)--all of these games are on the list of casualties that is Uwe Boll’s filmography. How he keeps getting these flicks is beyond me. If you want to know how not to do an adaptation (or how not to do any type of movie), watch Mr. Boll’s movies--and keep the pen and paper handy because you’ll have a lot to write down.

There are some movies that try to give the fans what they want, like 2005’s "Doom." If you know your gaming history, you know the name "Doom." The game was a pioneer, placing the player in a first person perspective and dropping him on Mars to slaughter the demons of Hell. Naturally, that had to become a movie at some point. During the film, there is a scene where the camera shots are done entirely in first person. I’ll admit that I liked that scene. But if the filmmakers really wanted to do the film justice, they would have made the monsters be demons from Hell like in the game instead of people who were transformed by a virus...or something--I don’t really remember. Apparently, I’ve tried to repress that memory.

Finally, in 2006, there was a glimmer of hope. The game franchise "Silent Hill" was to be adapted. The previews looked wonderful, the director seemed to really love the project, and Radha Mitchell was cast in the lead. She had played one of the leads in the movie "Pitch Black," and I really felt like she could play the part well. The opening was okay--it was when the characters got into the town of Silent Hill that things picked up. The monsters looked like their game counterparts, the town was creepy, the whole thing felt like “Silent Hill.”

I enjoy this movie (more so than others), but I was sorely disappointed with some of the decisions that were made. There were clunky scenes of information dumping and parts of the movie made one think, “Why are they doing that?” It also suffered from some bad dialogue. So, despite great art direction, creepy atmosphere and a strong lead, it still wasn’t what the fans wanted.

After almost 20 years, you would think that someone would have done at least one amazing game adaptation. So, one has to ask--can it be done?

The answer is, yes. If a comic can be made into a movie worthy of greatness, then so can a game adaptation. Closer attention needs to be placed on the source material.  Keep the important aspects and, if you must, make changes that make the film better.

There is a great short adaptation done by Neill Blomkamp. Does the name sound familiar? It should because he directed the phenomenal "District 9." He also did a short film set in the Halo video game universe and was slated to direct the "Halo" movie, which currently is on hold. In addition to Blomkamp, Peter Jackson had been involved with the project as an executive producer. Now that would be a film to see--but it doesn’t look like it’ll be coming out any time soon. Yay…

There have been other successes, just not in theaters. "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" was a direct-to-video CG sequel to the mega-hit "Final Fantasy VII." It was well received by the fans, even if it wasn’t a direct adaptation. There was also that "Legend of Zelda" trailer that hit the Web last year. Fans went nuts for it. Sure, it looked a little low budget in places, but it seemed to hit the nail on the head. Too bad it ended up being an April Fool’s joke done by a gaming Web site.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe translating something so immersive onto the big screen can’t work (unless it’s not a direct adaptation). I still hold out hope, though. One day, those in Hollywood will take video games seriously and someone will step up to create a masterpiece. Sure, I’ll probably be dead by then, but it’ll happen.

By our guest blogger, Jeremy Wilkinson

If you’ve been in a theater lately, you know it’s a good time to be a comic book fan. "Iron Man," the first two "Spider-Man" films, "30 Days of Night" and "The Dark Knight" are among the many great comic book adaptations to be produced in recent years. So, if filmmakers can adapt comic books and actually do justice to the source material, why can’t they do the same for games?

Hollywood keeps attempting to successfully create a great video game movie, but most of the time the movie falls flat on its face. Most video game movies are neither faithful adaptations of the source material nor are they good movies, independent of what they are based on. In fact, I find myself saying, “It was an okay sci-fi movie” or “It was an okay action movie” in regards to a few of these films. Quite honestly, these are the best compliments I can bring myself to give these movies. Why are they so bad? Maybe Hollywood doesn’t take the genre seriously yet, maybe it’s just bad luck, or maybe those making the movies only see them as cash cows.

Take "Super Mario Bros." In the late '80s and early '90s, Mario was everywhere. The first Mario Bros. game was a gigantic hit for Nintendo and spawned a franchise that still is around today. This was the first time Hollywood thought, “Hey! We can make money if we adapted this!” So, they took an amazing game and made it into a movie.  A very bad movie.

What could have been an Alice in Wonderland-esque family hit became sub-par film set in a dreary (though somewhat comedic) dystopia. Don’t get me wrong, dystopias are great…but why make that kind of change? That was not the only change.  Oh, no. In the game, Bowser is a fire-breathing turtle. In the movie, he’s a human (more or less) descended from the Tyrannosaurus Rex. The goombas went from mushroom people to reptile people. And Yoshi? Okay--he was still cute. The movie is not a good film on its own and it made changes to the source material that did not add to the film, but instead detracted from it. This turned out to be a running theme for movies based on games.

"Super Mario Bros." went down in history as one terrible movie. If you’ve seen it, you know why. The following year, two other live-action adaptations made it to the screen: "Double Dragon" and "Street Fighter." These movies were a one-two punch of cinematic blandness that should have made people realize that things needed to change. Both suffered from the same cardinal sins that the "Mario" movie did--they changed important aspects of the source material and were not good movies on their own. It’s too bad, too, since both movies had good enough actors as the lead villains.

Robert Patrick played Koga in "Double Dragon," but has none of the menace he had in "Terminator 2." In fact, he seems to not even be trying--it’s like he realized how bad the whole thing was after he had signed on for the picture and then gave up. At least Raul Julia (as M. Bison in "Street Fighter") does his best with what’s given to him--even if the writing was atrocious.  His character would bellow, “I’m going to take over the world!” Yes, because that is a legitimate goal in life. Why put that kind of pressure on yourself? Look at pictures of George Bush before and after his presidential term--and he only had to run a country! The logical loopholes in these films are astounding. Did the filmmakers say to themselves: “Children love video games.  Let’s make these movies childish!”

The one good thing about these movies is that one can watch them for their cheesy qualities. Sure, they’re bad, but some at least can be entertaining because of how bad they are.

As the years passed, more games were adapted into films. "Mortal Kombat" and "Resident Evil" were two of the three best (the third will be discussed later), which is kind of sad to say. Even though I like the movies, they still are average movies. And while "Mortal Kombat" kept most of the important aspects of the game in translation, "Resident Evil" eschewed the main characters from the game and replaced them with an original character. It was an okay action-zombie movie, but a bad "Resident Evil" movie.

In 2003, the world of video game adaptations changed forever. When "House of the Dead" was released, it introduced gamers to the soul-sucking parasite that is director Uwe Boll. Compared to the cinematic garbage of Boll, Ed Wood looks like Guillermo del Toro. Like Hitchcock, he treats source material as a treatment. But Hitchcock’s changes elevate his films whereas Boll’s changes murder his films. The sad thing is that Boll keeps getting the rights to make movies based on video games. "Alone in the Dark," "Dungeon Siege," "Zombie Massacre," "Postal" and "Bloodrayne" (with its second sequel on the way)--all of these games are on the list of casualties that is Uwe Boll’s filmography. How he keeps getting these flicks is beyond me. If you want to know how not to do an adaptation (or how not to do any type of movie), watch Mr. Boll’s movies--and keep the pen and paper handy because you’ll have a lot to write down.

There are some movies that try to give the fans what they want, like 2005’s "Doom." If you know your gaming history, you know the name "Doom." The game was a pioneer, placing the player in a first person perspective and dropping him on Mars to slaughter the demons of Hell. Naturally, that had to become a movie at some point. During the film, there is a scene where the camera shots are done entirely in first person. I’ll admit that I liked that scene. But if the filmmakers really wanted to do the film justice, they would have made the monsters be demons from Hell like in the game instead of people who were transformed by a virus...or something--I don’t really remember. Apparently, I’ve tried to repress that memory.

Finally, in 2006, there was a glimmer of hope. The game franchise "Silent Hill" was to be adapted. The previews looked wonderful, the director seemed to really love the project, and Radha Mitchell was cast in the lead. She had played one of the leads in the movie "Pitch Black," and I really felt like she could play the part well. The opening was okay--it was when the characters got into the town of Silent Hill that things picked up. The monsters looked like their game counterparts, the town was creepy, the whole thing felt like “Silent Hill.”

I enjoy this movie (more so than others), but I was sorely disappointed with some of the decisions that were made. There were clunky scenes of information dumping and parts of the movie made one think, “Why are they doing that?” It also suffered from some bad dialogue. So, despite great art direction, creepy atmosphere and a strong lead, it still wasn’t what the fans wanted.

After almost 20 years, you would think that someone would have done at least one amazing game adaptation. So, one has to ask--can it be done?

The answer is, yes. If a comic can be made into a movie worthy of greatness, then so can a game adaptation. Closer attention needs to be placed on the source material.  Keep the important aspects and, if you must, make changes that make the film better.

There is a great short adaptation done by Neill Blomkamp. Does the name sound familiar? It should because he directed the phenomenal "District 9." He also did a short film set in the Halo video game universe and was slated to direct the "Halo" movie, which currently is on hold. In addition to Blomkamp, Peter Jackson had been involved with the project as an executive producer. Now that would be a film to see--but it doesn’t look like it’ll be coming out any time soon. Yay…

There have been other successes, just not in theaters. "Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children" was a direct-to-video CG sequel to the mega-hit "Final Fantasy VII." It was well received by the fans, even if it wasn’t a direct adaptation. There was also that "Legend of Zelda" trailer that hit the Web last year. Fans went nuts for it. Sure, it looked a little low budget in places, but it seemed to hit the nail on the head. Too bad it ended up being an April Fool’s joke done by a gaming Web site.

Maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe translating something so immersive onto the big screen can’t work (unless it’s not a direct adaptation). I still hold out hope, though. One day, those in Hollywood will take video games seriously and someone will step up to create a masterpiece. Sure, I’ll probably be dead by then, but it’ll happen.

While stewing over the Academy Award nominations this past week, and apparently developing an ulcer in the process, some observations struck. Let’s discuss.

At some point in Hollywood, likely when most were resting comfortably while their Botox settled in, somebody erected a huge wind turbine in the Hills, turned it on and placed it at the back of Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire.”

As I write, that movie is being lofted along the winds from this award show to that award show, winning--always winning--as it hurtles toward the mother of all award shows, the Academy Awards, which air on ABC on Feb. 22.

Would somebody please unplug that turbine? Would they shut it down, stop the momentum and let “Slumdog” slump? The trouble isn’t that it’s a bad movie--it’s actually a very good movie. It’s just that it isn’t the year’s best movie. Not even close. Sure, that’s subjective thinking, but this is, after all, a column. And here’s the thing: When momentum like this builds, there’s often no stopping it. Unless there’s a major upset, “Slumdog Millionaire” is going to win Best Picture, which is a shame.

Here’s another one for the tsk-tsk pile. By far, “The Dark Knight” was one of last year’s best films and yet it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture, likely because it’s an action film and thus not considered worthy of serious critical acclaim. That’s too bad, because when you’re dealing with a movie as outstanding as “The Dark Knight,” you realize that the Academy has overlooked a genre masterpiece, not to mention the man who directed it, Christopher Nolan.

With the exception of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” no other movie nominated this year for Best Picture--“Slumdog Millionaire,” “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Milk”--brings together all of the complicated elements that, when done seamlessly, work to create that absolute illusion for which movies are designed.

“The Dark Knight” did. Judging by the seven technical nominations it received, such as Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction--one certainly might assume it’s deserving of a Best Picture nod.

But no. In spite of Heath Ledger’s nomination for Best Supporting Actor, which he will win, all of these accolades nevertheless amounted to zip when it came to being nominated for the biggest prizes, Best Picture and Best Director. While some might believe that earning half a billion dollars domestically is honor enough for any movie, the Academy Awards presumably are about the best of the best, period. So, it seems odd that “The Dark Knight” was shut out of the Best Picture and Best Director races, but then so was “Revolutionary Road,” and don’t even get me started on that.

Okay, get me started and let’s talk about a curiosity that movie poses. The five women nominated for Best Actress are Anne Hathaway for “Rachel Getting Married,” Angelina Jolie for “Changeling,” Melissa Leo for “Frozen River,” Meryl Streep for “Doubt” and Kate Winslet for “The Reader.” You read that last one correctly, and hopefully it stopped you cold.

While Winslet is very good in “The Reader,” her part in that movie is nothing more than a supporting role. It’s not her movie. So, knowing that, why wasn’t she nominated for her superior performance in “Revolutionary Road,” another movie oddly snubbed by the Academy? That would have been the correct fit for the Best Actress category, and I believe her outstanding performance in the film would have strengthened her chances of winning against Hathaway and Streep, who are busy building the kind of momentum that counts. That said, having two strong performances in one year from Winslet, who the Academy really wants to honor, won’t hurt her one bit.

More snubs? We’ve got your snubs. Take Bruce Springsteen. Why wasn’t his song, “The Wrestler,” nominated for Best Original Song for “The Wrestler”? It deserved to be. Speaking of that movie, why wasn’t it nominated for Best Picture over, say, “Frost/Nixon”? As great as Mickey Rourke was in the role, the movie and its cast rose to the level of his performance, with Darren Aronofsky being overlooked for Best Director.

Getting back to my argument about “The Dark Knight” (no, I won’t let it go), shouldn’t the animated “Wall-E” also have been nominated for Best Picture? Does the fact that it’s an animated film steal away its greatness? The movie is incredible. Look at what Pixar achieved with what essentially is a silent film. Sure, it’ll win the consolation prize of Best Animated Feature, but it should have had a shot at the top spot, taking the place of “Slumdog Millionaire,” for instance, or “The Reader,” the latter of which is a good movie, but hardly among the year’s best films.

But enough grousing. What did the Academy do right? Plenty. It shrewdly found Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road” and nominated him for Best Supporting Actor, which he shares with Josh Brolin in “Milk,” Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder,” Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt,” and the aforementioned Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight.”

The Academy also didn’t forget Penelope Cruz’s amazing, unhinged performance in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” and so it nominated her for Best Supporting Actress, in which she shares the spotlight with four other actresses who deserve to be alongside her--Amy Adams and Viola Davis for “Doubt,” Taraji P. Henson for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler.”

Also not forgotten was Richard Jenkins for his complex, rousing performance in “The Visitor.” The longtime character actor is nominated for Best Actor, with four other men rightfully joining him--Frank Langella for “Frost/Nixon,” Brad Pitt for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” Sean Penn for “Milk” and Mickey Rourke for “The Wrestler.”

So, who’s going to pin down this year’s awards? Who’s going to slump against the ropes? Better yet, who’s going to put the ice on my ulcer? As we do every year here, we’ll put our necks on the chopping block and handicap the awards the Friday before the show.

While stewing over the Academy Award nominations this past week, and apparently developing an ulcer in the process, some observations struck. Let’s discuss.

At some point in Hollywood, likely when most were resting comfortably while their Botox settled in, somebody erected a huge wind turbine in the Hills, turned it on and placed it at the back of Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire.”

As I write, that movie is being lofted along the winds from this award show to that award show, winning--always winning--as it hurtles toward the mother of all award shows, the Academy Awards, which air on ABC on Feb. 22.

Would somebody please unplug that turbine? Would they shut it down, stop the momentum and let “Slumdog” slump? The trouble isn’t that it’s a bad movie--it’s actually a very good movie. It’s just that it isn’t the year’s best movie. Not even close. Sure, that’s subjective thinking, but this is, after all, a column. And here’s the thing: When momentum like this builds, there’s often no stopping it. Unless there’s a major upset, “Slumdog Millionaire” is going to win Best Picture, which is a shame.

Here’s another one for the tsk-tsk pile. By far, “The Dark Knight” was one of last year’s best films and yet it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture, likely because it’s an action film and thus not considered worthy of serious critical acclaim. That’s too bad, because when you’re dealing with a movie as outstanding as “The Dark Knight,” you realize that the Academy has overlooked a genre masterpiece, not to mention the man who directed it, Christopher Nolan.

With the exception of “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” no other movie nominated this year for Best Picture--“Slumdog Millionaire,” “Frost/Nixon,” “The Reader,” “Milk”--brings together all of the complicated elements that, when done seamlessly, work to create that absolute illusion for which movies are designed.

“The Dark Knight” did. Judging by the seven technical nominations it received, such as Best Film Editing, Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction--one certainly might assume it’s deserving of a Best Picture nod.

But no. In spite of Heath Ledger’s nomination for Best Supporting Actor, which he will win, all of these accolades nevertheless amounted to zip when it came to being nominated for the biggest prizes, Best Picture and Best Director. While some might believe that earning half a billion dollars domestically is honor enough for any movie, the Academy Awards presumably are about the best of the best, period. So, it seems odd that “The Dark Knight” was shut out of the Best Picture and Best Director races, but then so was “Revolutionary Road,” and don’t even get me started on that.

Okay, get me started and let’s talk about a curiosity that movie poses. The five women nominated for Best Actress are Anne Hathaway for “Rachel Getting Married,” Angelina Jolie for “Changeling,” Melissa Leo for “Frozen River,” Meryl Streep for “Doubt” and Kate Winslet for “The Reader.” You read that last one correctly, and hopefully it stopped you cold.

While Winslet is very good in “The Reader,” her part in that movie is nothing more than a supporting role. It’s not her movie. So, knowing that, why wasn’t she nominated for her superior performance in “Revolutionary Road,” another movie oddly snubbed by the Academy? That would have been the correct fit for the Best Actress category, and I believe her outstanding performance in the film would have strengthened her chances of winning against Hathaway and Streep, who are busy building the kind of momentum that counts. That said, having two strong performances in one year from Winslet, who the Academy really wants to honor, won’t hurt her one bit.

More snubs? We’ve got your snubs. Take Bruce Springsteen. Why wasn’t his song, “The Wrestler,” nominated for Best Original Song for “The Wrestler”? It deserved to be. Speaking of that movie, why wasn’t it nominated for Best Picture over, say, “Frost/Nixon”? As great as Mickey Rourke was in the role, the movie and its cast rose to the level of his performance, with Darren Aronofsky being overlooked for Best Director.

Getting back to my argument about “The Dark Knight” (no, I won’t let it go), shouldn’t the animated “Wall-E” also have been nominated for Best Picture? Does the fact that it’s an animated film steal away its greatness? The movie is incredible. Look at what Pixar achieved with what essentially is a silent film. Sure, it’ll win the consolation prize of Best Animated Feature, but it should have had a shot at the top spot, taking the place of “Slumdog Millionaire,” for instance, or “The Reader,” the latter of which is a good movie, but hardly among the year’s best films.

But enough grousing. What did the Academy do right? Plenty. It shrewdly found Michael Shannon in “Revolutionary Road” and nominated him for Best Supporting Actor, which he shares with Josh Brolin in “Milk,” Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder,” Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Doubt,” and the aforementioned Heath Ledger in “The Dark Knight.”

The Academy also didn’t forget Penelope Cruz’s amazing, unhinged performance in “Vicky Cristina Barcelona,” and so it nominated her for Best Supporting Actress, in which she shares the spotlight with four other actresses who deserve to be alongside her--Amy Adams and Viola Davis for “Doubt,” Taraji P. Henson for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” and Marisa Tomei in “The Wrestler.”

Also not forgotten was Richard Jenkins for his complex, rousing performance in “The Visitor.” The longtime character actor is nominated for Best Actor, with four other men rightfully joining him--Frank Langella for “Frost/Nixon,” Brad Pitt for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” Sean Penn for “Milk” and Mickey Rourke for “The Wrestler.”

So, who’s going to pin down this year’s awards? Who’s going to slump against the ropes? Better yet, who’s going to put the ice on my ulcer? As we do every year here, we’ll put our necks on the chopping block and handicap the awards the Friday before the show.