You’re going to hear lots of hype in the months ahead, but it’s sometimes hard to know which summer movies you should ignore and which you should embrace. Give your brains a rest, because I have the answers: See these five movies.
“Terminator Salvation” (May 21) — In the first post-Judgment Day movie, I see no sign of Derek Reese or Cameron from “The Sarah Connor Chronicles,” Claire Danes from “T3” has morphed into Bryce Dallas Howard, the Governator is absent, and Batman is playing John Connor. I know now why I cry when watching “Terminator” movies — because I don’t know how it all fits into the timeline — but you know I’ll check it out anyway. Watch the trailer here.
“Land of the Lost” (June 5) — For people a bit older than me, it’s the Star Destroyer at the beginning of “Star Wars.” But for me, it’s the T-rex trying to eat two kids in “Jurassic Park” that’s my “wow” moment of childhood moviegoing. The T-rexes of “King Kong” were also enthralling, and I expect “Land of the Lost” to reach that increasingly high bar for amazingly real prehistoric creatures. And maybe deliver some laughs, too, since Will Ferrell stars. Watch the trailer here.
“Year One” (June 19) — A rare summer blockbuster with substance? “Year One” — which follows a spiritualist (Jack Black) and an existentialist (Michael Cera) in the early days of man — is the latest film to make that claim. I don’t necessarily expect it to deliver, but the presence of two naturally funny lead actors makes me want to believe. Watch the trailer here.
“Bruno” (July 10) — Love it or hate it, 2006’s “Borat” certainly offered a unique brand of comedy, because no one else goes to Sacha Baron Cohen’s lengths for laughs (i.e. naked wrestling with his roommate in the middle of a convention hall). You’d think “Borat” would be a one-shot deal, because how could Cohen find a whole new batch of unknowing people to interact with while posing as a character from his old HBO show? Well, he did it somehow, this time as gay fashion guru Bruno. Watch the trailer here.
“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” (July 15) — This is the must-see movie of the summer as far as I’m concerned. For one thing, the “Potter” films are fun for fans of the books, because we get to see how the filmmakers interpret J.K. Rowling’s words (for the most part, they’ve gotten it right). For another thing, this is the best of the seven “Potter” books, featuring an enlightening backstory for Voldemort. And we all know that a good hero’s journey only works if he’s matched against a good villain. Watch the trailer here.
What blockbusters are on your must-see list in the coming months?
Comments
I’m a bit dissapointed in this list.
I understand that this list came after the release of Star Trek I believe it still worth a mention as a summer ‘must see’.
Also, I see no mention of the ‘Transformers’ sequel. Whether or not you believe it will be a good movie, it is still a must see.
Also, Pixar’s ‘UP’ or ‘Ice Age 3’ both in 3D look interesting as well.
Regarding your picks, I am only interested in Terminator (obviously) and Harry Potter (only because I have seen the others).
Being a fan of Land of the Lost as a child, I believe the movie will be about has bad as the ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ movie a few years back.
Bruno will be decent, but a retread of Borat. Year One could go either way…
Oh.. and what about GI Joe! haha# Posted By shaune | 5/14/09 12:17 PM
“Star Trek” is definitely a must-see, as we both noted in the “Star Trek” post.
I disliked the first “Transformers” movie immensely. It was illogical, but not in an amusing way — how could a giant robot inside the Hoover Dam, overseen by hundreds of workers, have stayed a secret for decades? I guess it was supposed to “fun,” but I was just bored. I assume the “GI Joe” franchise will fall into the same category, and I didn’t grow up as a fan (I was a “Star Wars” kid).
I have a bias against animated kids’ movies. I’ve never seen one that I liked, so now I just never watch them. I do watch the previews, though, and none of them hook me. The “Up” trailer functioned fine as a short film, but the idea of a full-length movie scares me as I think of how bored I would be.
Actually, the “Land of the Lost” trailer looks very funny. Will Ferrell strikes the right comedic tone, like when he’s shouting about running in a serpentine pattern while being chased by a T-rex.
The “Year One” trailer is very funny at the start, when they play the whole “guy can’t get the girl” scenario in prehistoric times. Then it gets a little overblown, but I think the movie will have a lot of chuckles.
“Bruno” could be horrible or great. At least it’s ambitious.# Posted By John Hansen | 5/14/09 12:42 PM
I think that a movie can only be as good as you let it. (in most cases) – For example, Transformers – it is Michael Bay, you know that it is going to be big, fun and not necessarily smart. Especially with Shai LeBeouf (man I hate him) .. yes some of the plot was dumb, and I HATED the parts with his family, and Bumblebee peeing on the human etc, but it was fun. I think my mouth was wide open during the first 15 min of the movie.
And I hate Will Farrel. He tries too hard.# Posted By Shaune | 5/14/09 11:39 PM
I recent years, I have learned to enjoy bad movies. My friend Trevor taught me how to do it. The trick is to approach the movie as if it’s a comedy. For example, I found “Rambo” to be one of the 10 best movies of 2008, not on its merits, but because I laughed so much during it. I was highly entertained. “The Condemned” is another great unintentional comedy, and probably the best of all time is the 1990s Ice-T starrer “Surviving the Game.”
“Transformers” certainly isn’t a good movie, but it’s also not quite bad enough to be funny. For me, it fell into that painful middle ground where I just wanted to run out of the theater and salvage what was left of those two hours of my life.
There is the theory that your mood on that day will affect your enjoyment of the movie, but that doesn’t apply to me. My initial impression of a film always holds up on the rare occasions when I watch it a second time.# Posted By John Hansen | 5/15/09 12:04 AM
This is not meant to offend, but merely bring up another topic. Why is it that all critics, or anyone in the profession (like you) hate all popular movies?
I have always wondered. For much of my life I guauged the movies that I saw simply by going to the opposite of the movies recommended by critics.
Why can a move receive terrible reviews from critics yet be a hugely popular movie and make a bajillion dollars? I just don’t get it.
I know you will defend yourself by picking out a few of the popular movies you did like (Star Trek) but in most cases you have to agree this is true.
Like when year after year the ‘best’ movie is chosen from a slew of movies that the average American has never seen. Whats the deal?# Posted By shaune | 5/15/09 1:54 PM
No offense taken. I can answer your question. The short answer is that there isn’t as much of a connection between artistic quality and marketing success as you might assume.
A more complex answer is that professional movie critics or serious movie geeks see a lot more movies than the average person. After a while, seeing something new becomes the barometer by which they judge movies (that’s why something like “Memento,” which is actually rather boring, got great reviews — it was something critics hadn’t seen before). Blockbusters rarely provide something new.
I haven’t seen many more movies than the average person, so my top 10 lists tend to be fairly populist (see my blog post of my top 10 movies of 2008). But I’ve seen enough movies that the same old thing just doesn’t do it for me anymore. Meanwhile, John Q. Public doesn’t mind the same old thing, because it’s not old to him yet. And there are a lot more John Q. Publics than there are John Q. Movie Critics.
The marketing side of movies and the artistic side of movies haven’t been in harmony for at least 30 years (with the occasional exception like “Titanic,” which made a ton of money and is also a pretty good film). Studios, rightly or wrongly, have their ideas of what should be marketed heavily (more advertising money, more screens, etc.). Almost always, these are the expensive pictures, because there is pressure to make their money back. Basically, everyone in Hollywood is desperately trying to keep their jobs, so they look for big, short-term successes.
The average moviegoer is only aware of movies that are heavily marketed, so they go to those movies, and those movies make more money than something that’s on a couple screens in New York and L.A. Plus, there are also people like me who would often rather see the New York/L.A. movies, but our money goes to “Wolverine” and “Star Trek,” because that’s what’s playing locally.
Box-office earnings are a measure of marketing success or failure. Remember, people buy tickets before they know if a movie is any good.
On the other hand, when a critic makes a top 10 list, they are simply saying, “these are the 10 films I liked best last year.” Naturally, box office will not factor into that list. And your list or my list will have more big-name movies because we haven’t seen as many small movies as critics have.# Posted By John Hansen | 5/15/09 2:28 PM