LIARS AND THIEVES: THE DECEPTIVE VILLAINS TREND

A musing on the success and mostly failure of concealing your true villain

Villains are a crafty bunch. Dealing in lies, trickery, and deception to get what they want, a good villain will string you along until they turn on you at the right moment, revealing their true, sinister motives.

By that standard, filmmakers Shane Black and J.J. Abrams are on their way to becoming terrific villains.

I won't lie, before this summer started I was pumped that in the span of two months we'd be seeing Iron Man's arch nemesis, The Mandarin, Superman's super-powered antithesis, General Zod, and Benedict Cumberbatch playing somebody nefarious, all on the big screen. In at least one category, it looked like summer '13 would match the lofty standards set by summer '12.

I wish I knew how two of those examples would turn out -- then I could have curbed that enthusiasm earlier on.

Since this article talks about, arguably, the biggest twists in both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness, you'd be right in assuming this is spoiler filled, which means turn your gaze away now if you want the mystery intact.

The Mandarin is an incredibly tricky character to bring to life. Essentially a dated/racist manifestation of communism, it was always assumed that some liberties would be taken to properly translate his character after three movies of buildup without offending as many people as possible. That said, having The Mandarin turn out to be a drug-addicted British stage actor who is meant to cover for Aldrich Killian's Extremis experiments, and not a villain at all, the liberties taken here were a bit on the extreme side.

Meanwhile, Khan Noonien Singh is Star Trek's biggest baddie and any attempts to conceal his true identity were made in vain from the very beginning. But like our previous foe, Khan was not the only villain in Star Trek Into Darkness, with Peter Weller's Admiral Marcus acting as the schemer behind the curtain and Khan filling a secondary villain role for most of the movie.

One of these twists was mostly expected, one was most definitely not. Regardless, neither of them worked to their full potential.

Nobody saw The Mandarin twist coming. Shane Black masterfully concealed any clues from the audience about the truth and even our entourage of bad guys dedicated themselves to the illusion throughout, referring to Kingsley's character as "The Master." All in all, it's a very smart way of going about such a problematic character and doing something fresh and new with the narrative. For that, it has my respect.

The problem is nobody wanted this twist. The buildup to see who the man behind the group that kidnapped Tony Stark in the first movie and got Ivan Vanko onto that Monaco race track in 2 was finally coming to a head and to reveal that not only was he not what he seemed, but not a villain at all, was nothing less than disappointing.

Truthfully, I could have perfectly lived with that twist had the true villain of the movie been a show-stopper. Needless to say, he wasn't. Aldrich Killain is a cool idea for a villain in some ways, finally providing an adversary who's not a bruiser and can still go toe to toe with Iron Man without the aid of another robot suit and Guy Pearce is certainly fun and fierce in the role but the character is lacking something. Namely, clear motives (how do you own the war on terror and profit from it when the terrorist isn't real?) and abilities that differentiate him from his other Extremis minions. It's like they traded one group of bad guys that are all the same (Vanko's drones) for another.

Not offensive enough to be The Mandarin

Fuzzy implications that Killian is supposed to be some iteration of the actual Mandarin are almost insulting and are an underlying  reason why this twist may be so off-putting. Maybe with a lesser villain in Iron Man lore, there may not have been such a huge backlash but as is, it's a creative risk that only half-way paid off.

Meanwhile, having the villain of Star Trek Into Darkness be Khan was a twist almost everyone saw coming, with it possibly being one of the worst kept secrets of this summer.

One might think having Star Trek's most fan-favorite villain in the new movie would be an opportunity for an exciting and memorable new interpretation. If so, opportunity squandered.

For much of the movie, Khan is lacking a certain weight. He fights and menaces from the sidelines as the mannered Cumberbatch delivers his lines in super-bass mode but there is something underwhelming about him. Like Mandarin, it is also revealed about half way through that there is another devious mind  at work, this time being Peter Weller's character of Admiral Marcus. Marcus woke Khan up to develop weapons for an upcoming war against the Klingons and when Khan escaped to their world, Marcus intended to use the Enterprise to start a war with them.

Even with his extraordinary strength, intelligence and casting choice, Khan is just a little boring. His background is hazy, the true core of why he's an antagonist isn't made clear until later in the movie with one sentence (the whole extinction of "inferior" races thing) and despite him being heavily featured in the marketing, he's sidelined for most of the movie as a secondary villain.

By comparison, the idea of Marcus being the villain is a lot more original and actually gives something to think about. The leader of Star Fleet is actually a war-hungry schemer who awoke a centuries-old, genetically modified conqueror to build advanced weaponry and when it went sideways, he tried manipulating a captain and his ship into not only killing his enemy, but killing him with said enemies friend's as the weapon and erasing the evidence of his supposed wrong-doing in the process. Not only that, but by firing these people-filled missiles and disabling their warp core, Marcus has a patsy to start the war that he always wanted in one move.

Maybe its just me, but those actions seem pretty villainous and hold more water when you leave the theater. This speaks to a question that seems to be prevalent in the Star Trek universe: is Star Fleet an exploratory organization, or a military one?

And yet, our villain with the true interest is played off as a plot complication and the hyped villain just sits around, boringly, until he's needed for the next action set-piece.

Interestingly enough, both of these twists operate under the exact same theme — the true face behind terrorism. Killian and Marcus both operate in secrecy and pass the blame for these terroristic attacks onto someone else, be it as a distraction or a means to an end, to continue their devious work. It's a timely and important topic, one I hope continues to be explored, but one I also hope is executed better.

For comparison's sake, last summer's two biggest villains, Loki and Bane, also had the invisible hand twist in their stories, with Thanos giving Loki the army he needed to invade Earth and Talia al Ghul actually leading the League of Shadows. The thing is that once those specific things were revealed, neither Bane nor Loki stopped being villains. They were still a real threat and their actions weren't eliminated or outshined.

Iron Man took a big threat and revealed him to be a fraud but left us with an actual villain who was just standard. Star Trek took a small character and revealed him to be larger than life but never utilized him correctly and probably should never have used him in the first place. Some twist and turns are appreciated but they must be done with more care. Otherwise they're just cheap and betray their message.

My fingers are firmly crossed that there's no scene in Man of Steel where the man we know as Zod is revealed to be a cadet and his right-hand accomplice, Faora, is revealed to have gone by the name of Zod. Going by this summer so far, it may be a legitimate concern.

Pictured: my face if that happens

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS REVIEW

Nobody killed Star Trek — it grew stale and died on its own after people got bored.

Instead what we have here is more akin to a mad scientist digging up its corpse, Frankenstein-ing something together out of the best bits and pieces and supercharging it with a bolt of lightning. And while it certainly has far more basic brain functions, this new being known as Star Trek works entirely on its own.

After betraying the prime directive in order to save Spock's life, Captain Kirk is dressed down in an effort to learn some humility. When two terrorist attacks by the mysterious "John Harrison" leave Star Fleet shaken, Kirk and his crew are given permission to track the elusive fugitive down and destroy him. However, the mission is not all what it seems and the Enterprise may have ventured too far into darkness to return unscathed.

Even if you're one of the people that thinks the new Star Trek is some kind of desecration, you must admit that the property has never been more popular than it is now thanks to what J.J. Abrams has done with the material. Say what you will about his unmistakable lack of respect for the original show or the loss of the low-budget, cerebral quality it was originally built upon -- audiences have responded to these new films being big, dumb action movies and as big, dumb action movies, the new Star Trek films are some of the most entertaining.

The danger in 2009's Star Trek was tense; the threats presented in Star Trek Into Darkness leave you with little time to breathe. One by one, things go horribly wrong and our crew of protagonists is put in mortal peril, displayed in some jaw-dropping action set-pieces. A visit to the Klingon home planet and several instances of the Enterprise almost kicking the bucket (often piled on top of each other) gets the blood pumping and the nerves on high even more proficiently than the last.

Of course, we wouldn't be all that invested without a cast that continues to knock it out of the park.  The banter between the cast continues to be great. The expanding relationship between Chis Pine's Kirk and Zachary Quinto's Spock has some genuine heart and care put into it, along with Kirk's journey towards humility. Zoe Saldana has more to do in the first hour of this movie than she did in the entirety of the last one. Side players Simon Pegg and Karl Urban continue to absolutely own with relative ease in their roles as Scotty and Bones, respectively.

Newcomers Alice Eve and Peter Weller hold their own well but the big addition is no doubt Benedict Cumberbatch as our big baddie who, I'm a little disappointed to say, was simply really good. The man is a terrific, gifted actor but he's too good for what they have him doing here.

Awe-inspiring action, scene stealing performances and a layered emotional arc are strengths carried over from the first movie that essentially make this series what it is and what's so appealing about it.

And still, what we have here is, at its heart, a big, dumb action movie script that unfortunately pushes into a frustrating area of either laziness or idiocy the first movie barely even touched.

The reprehensible Damon Lindelof (seriously, why are they still giving him movies to make mediocre at this point?), under Abrams' hand, delivers the final screenplay that's built on basic familiarity of the brand with an overabundance of throw-away fan service moments.

The previous Star Trek movie did itself a huge favor by establishing this as a separate timeline, which gave the filmmakers free reign to explore new stories and ideas. So when this movie essentially settles for being a louder reworking of *SPOILERS* The Wrath of Khan*SPOILERS* in many parts, it feels like a huge slap in the face.

Why?

The half-baked (and unnecessary) twist midway through, along with excessive, obvious foreshadowing on no less than two huge events doesn't do the movie any favors either.

The first two acts survive while the third eventually sinks following a heavy-handed and cheap plot throwback that's then followed by a big, dumb action movie chase/fight you can only scratch your head over.

A strong argument could be made that this new Star Trek is following a parallel path to the two new Sherlock Holmes movies: both the originals, while more action-oriented re-imaginings, retain the spirit of their source material and thrive on the strong chemistry of their main players to make for a fun, exciting update. The sequels, both featuring the series' most popular villain, still retain the chemistry but lose some of the magic that made the source material special, opting more to be a big, dumb action movie. Some plot points from A Game of Shadows and Into Darkness are practically identical.

Still, it can't be said there's nothing smart about the movie. Into Darkness does make an interesting (dare I say thoughtful) point about why Star Fleet seems so militarized lately and most of the emotional beats between the main characters ring surprisingly true and mature (with one notable exception), helped out in part by another fantastic Michael Giacchino score.

With only the defect of blurry 3D, Into Darkness features some simply amazing full IMAX scenes and is one to make the Trek to see in the superior format.

The old Star Trek isn't going away forever, so there's really no harm in this new creation having its moment in the sun. One can only hope any further adventures will have the drive to boldly go where no man has gone before in the plot department but if it continues to be as strong on visuals and character, we'll still have one of the best popcorn movie series around.

7/10

THE GREAT GATSBY REVIEW

"You can't repeat the past."

This is an idea that is central to The Great Gatsby. Yet outside the basic yes or no solutions, this 2013 adaption of the classic novel itself acts as an answer to that question -- maybe you shouldn't.

Everyone in New York shows up to his gigantic parties but nobody seems to know who Jay Gatsby is. That is, until up-and-coming bond salesman Nick Carraway, his neighbor, is caught up in the dream world Gatsby has created in order to woo an old flame of his, Daisy, Nick's cousin now married to the inconsiderate sportsman Tom Buchanan. But can Gatsby's dream become a reality and withstand harsh truth of the matter  (his background and source of wealth) or is it doomed to be unattainable?

Having never read it, F. Scott Fitzgerald's signature novel, The Great Gatsby, has only ever been described to me by the most reputable sources I know as "The Most Boring Book Ever Written". While literature and film are different mediums to be sure, this movie, in spite of all its best efforts, can't escape that defining aspect of the book.

Even with all its glitz, glamour, and visual splendor, The Great Gatsby is just plain boring. Instead of trying to adapt it as flashy eye candy with a modern twist, director Baz Luhrmann would have done much better for himself (and everyone else) by focusing on a tighter runtime and characters we care about.

I'm sure that the portrayal of these characters is faithful to the book, but the film does really nothing to give us any reason to care. That's not to say the actors are bad -- on the contrary, the cast is one of few things the movie has going for it.

DiCaprio delivers another serviceable and slightly above par performance as Gatsby (still not seeing an Oscar in his near future, though) but Joel Edgerton actually outshines him as Tom Buchanan, a role that ends up being more layered than the traditional dickbag villain thanks to his performance. Tobey Maguire jumps back and forth between believable and out of his league, but ultimately fits into the movie. And despite all her questionable role choices and performances, Carey Mulligan does justice to the fickle and dough-headed Daisy -- as much as anyone can or should.

But instead of breathing new life into these characters, besides making them noticeably younger than previous interpretations, Baz Luhrmann is once again all about the visuals. The Great Gatsby most of the time comes off as one big Gatsby party, but just like the titular character's celebrations, the true meaning is obscured and the movie ends up being more style than substance.

Why this incredibly dry book needed a 3D adaption is beyond me but it just calls more attention to the movie's real focus: the party scenes. Delivering the kind of extravagant visuals one might expect from the director of Romeo+Juliet and Moulin Rouge, the energy felt in these parts is commendable but these scenes feel like high-energy asides, there only to regain the audience's focus. The core of the story is lost in these vibrant little patchworks. Though I must admit, seeing Tobey Maguire get plastered early on is amusing enough in its own right.

Speaking of things that don't fit, word was quick to spread about the decision to utilize a soundtrack by Jay-Z for the movie, focusing all on modern music with only some score repasted in here and there. It's an interesting risk to be sure but it's not one that paid off in any way. Forced parallels to the Roaring '20s and our current society aside, the music does nothing to add to the story, often just flailing there, awkwardly.

When adding this to the overwrought visuals and lack of depth, The Great Gatsby comes off as no more than a two and a half hour music video.

It's worth briefly mentioning the wonky editing and how often character's words don't match their mouths.

Yet even if these had been paid attention to in the editing bay, it wouldn't for a minute change the fact that The Great Gatsby is a disjointed, hollow affair.

4/10

IRON MAN 3 REVIEW

To successfully follow up the biggest non-James Cameron movie ever sounds exhausting; to try and do it with a three-quel sounds impossible.

I guess one should never doubt the power of Robert Downey Jr. and the role that brought him back into the spotlight because Marvel and company have delivered a movie that is arguably as fun as The Avengers and succeeds as such with a much different focus.

Tony Stark isn't having the best of times. Despite saving all of New York from obliteration, Stark is suffering from panic attacks brought on by his heroic deed, which puts a strain on his relationship with Pepper Potts. After Happy Hogan is injured in an apparent bomb blast, Stark foolishly declares revenge (and his home address) against the culprit, the mysterious uber-terrorist The Mandarin. With his home and things destroyed, Stark must rely on his wits to find The Mandarin, save Pepper from danger and find out how the think-tank A.I.M. and its sketchy scientist leader, Aldrich Killian, are involved.

Contrary to its title, Iron Man 3 is really a Tony Stark movie. Much like another recent superhero three-quel, The Dark Knight Rises, this movie spends most of its time with the man behind the mask and that's just fine. Many may lament the lack of Iron Man here and many people would be wrong in forgetting that Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark is infinitely more interesting outside the suit than he is inside it.

It's not hard rooting for the effortlessly charismatic Downey as is but director/writer Shane Black and writer Drew Pearce craft a character piece with wit and one-liners to spare. Seeing our hero in such a vulnerable place with his panic attacks actually sparks some genuine character interest and investment, something Marvel movies usually aren't strong on.

Likewise, Pepper, Rhodey, and Happy are given something to do that never seems forced. The chemistry between Downey and Paltrow continues to be one of the cutest, most whip-smart pairings the genre has to offer.


Black and Pearce find a perfect balance between the sometimes heavy thematic material (surpassing the original's use of terrorists as a plot device and certainly anything seen in Iron Man 2) and the naturally witty world Stark inhabits.

Black's trademark Christmas setting for his movies, as well as much of the movie being a mystery starring Downey with hints of a buddy-cop film, draws heavy comparisons to his previous film Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang. Seeing how that movie is pretty terrific, that seems like a good thing. Instead of a straight adaption of the material, Iron Man 3 feels much more like an interpretation of the world - one that takes liberties here and there but ultimately pays off well. If this movie is to be believed, this could be a sign of Marvel heading in a much more artistically daring direction.


But before it begins to sound like the movie completely devoted to examining what makes each character tick, it wouldn't be an Iron Man movie without some serious action set pieces, which Iron Man 3 delivers on. The attack on Stark's mansion, a skydiving stunt, and the explosive finale on an oil rig all push the Iron Man action to new boundaries and occasionally gives the action seen in The Avengers a run for its money.

And still, it wouldn't quite be an Iron Man movie without the odd flaw, here and there.

DC comic adaptions, the Batman movies in particular, have had the distinct trend of their villains overshadowing their heroes. To counteract this, Marvel has moved in the opposite direction and, time and time again, has practically taken measures to make sure their villains are as flat and unmemorable as possible. Iron Man 3 is unfortunately a poster boy for this continuing flaw.

Without spoiling too much, there is a substantial twist when it comes to The Mandarin and Killian - one that, while no doubt well-concealed and original, comes off as cheap in terms of buildup and comic book accuracy and only succeeds half way. No marks against Ben Kingsley or Guy Pearce here since both are terrific fun to watch play their roles. It's just that, ultimately, the villain we are left with at the end of the movie is a letdown because of a late introduction, fuzzy motives and lack of differentiation between him and the other Extremis soldiers in terms of abilities.

Speaking of which, the possibilities of this new and exciting class of adversary seem promising in the beginning (no more guy in suit vs. guy in suit action!) but are never taken advantage of, essentially turning everyone exposed to Extremis into super-strong molten men/women with unclear thresholds of how they can be defeated.

Two plot holes cropping during the movie that simply can't be put out of mind:

1. When the airwaves get taken over and the president is kidnapped, shouldn't there be some sort of mega-spy agency we've seen before that should step in?

and

2. The Ten Rings was the terrorist group that originally kidnapped Tony Stark, whose logo can be seen at the beginning and end of every one of The Mandarin's videos. This is intended to be a clear tie-in to the first movie and no explanation is given for this. Ugh, my brain hurts.

But I hate when people harp on plot holes too much and these are a minor detriment at worst. All in all they really don't do much to take away from what is so far the most fun movie experience of the year.

There are no less than eight quotable lines and a similar amount of moments dukeing it out for my favorite moment of the movie (Stark's McGuyver/unibomber phase is currently winning). The 3D doesn't do much to add to the experience but it doesn't really take anything away from it, so there's my not-discouraging plug. Conversely, if you haven't considered seeing the movie in IMAX, do so and fast.

Iron Man 3 may not be perfect but what film is, especially what third installment? What it is is a hell of a lot of fun, a high-ranker in terms of Marvel movies, a great way to start the summer and a movie I'm looking forward to seeing again (and again).

8/10

GREETINGS, SALUTATIONS, AND WELCOME BACKS

It's been a long winter and now's finally the time to kiss it goodbye.

The year has been no less than eventful and unfortunately these events didn't include updating this site very regularly. Mea culpa.

But now it's summer, which means I have a lot more time on my hands, the most anticipated movies of the year are coming out, and my regular writing outlet is ca-puts for much of the next three months. So here I am again, ready to dive in.

To prove I wasn't simply hibernating for the past seven months, you can find my school-year writings at the website of Minnesota State University, Mankato's student newspaper, The Reporter.

So, without further ado, I'll be bringing you my thoughts on many recent happenings soon, including reviews of Iron Man 3, its score, The Great Gatsby, and current movie news/events, plus I look forward to spilling the word on upcoming behemoths like Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel, music scores included, as well as some of the smaller releases this summer might see.

Now's a good time to be someone who writes about mostly movies.

IRON MAN 3 TRAILER HAS INTRIGUING INSPIRATIONS

[Author’s note: I’m not overly fond of doing in-depth trailer talks. Too often movie trailers mislead us into making assumptions and judgments about a movie that end up being not at all representative of the finished product. That said, this one provided too much solid stuff to pass up, so here I go.]

            

Kicking off the second phase of Marvel’s shared universe of movies next summer is the long awaited Iron Man 3. Fans and spectators alike have been wondering not just what the third installment of Marvel’s most popular character (who doesn’t crawl walls) will be about, but how it will follow (and as Marvel hopes, tops) The Avengers, this summer’s mega-blockbuster. Now the first official trailer for the movie has debuted and it’s like “insert gift giving holiday here” come early. Not too much info is given away, but it is clear that the movie will be action packed and Tony Stark will be tested and pushed to the brink like never before. The two minute trailer makes it clear that the stakes have never been higher for our hero.

            

And in observing this dark tone, comparisons started to spring up that were most intriguing. From the somberness of the footage to certain shots and story elements, it started to seem more and more like the moderately light-hearted and jaunty fantasy tone of the first two Iron Man movies and The Avengers has been substituted for the gritty seriousness of Christopher Nolan’s Dark Knight trilogy. Specifically, the trailer echoes a great many elements from this summer’s The Dark Knight Rises, Nolan’s third and final Batman movie to the point of making it look like it takes direct inspiration from it.

            

The Dark Knight Rises saw our protagonist hit his lowest point before he rose to overcome in the end. If the footage is to be believed, Tony Stark is also in for some hardship in Iron Man 3. He appears battered and defeated in many scenes. Voiceover of him talking about the many apologies he needs to make and how many people want to kill him puts a grim mood over everything. The trailer ends with a shot of Stark hauling his armor behind him, alone, in some remote winter area.

            

Even the font type of the giant “3” when the title card appears at the end is shown to be dying and crumbling away, exactly like the backdrop of DKR’s title card (a bat signal formed from what appears to be broken concrete).

            

Then there’s the villain. A fanatical terrorist leader, played by a respectable British actor (Tom Hardy as Bane in DKR, Ben Kingsley as The Mandarin in IM3) who’s speaking in an accent that doesn’t sound anything like their own voice, giving an ominous voiceover speech about what they consider themselves (“I’m Gotham’s Reckoning”; “Some people call me a terrorist. I consider myself a teacher.”). So, yes, as you can see, they’re not similar in any way.

            

Since we are talking about an Iron Man movie here, the footage wouldn’t be complete without a lot of stuff that goes boom. We are shown that Tony’s previous armors are destroyed by individual explosions, culminating in a scene in which Stark’s Cliffside mansion is leveled and blasted into the sea by a group of assault helicopters. This scene is sure to be one of the centerpieces in the middle of the movie, similar to the destruction of the football field and bridges in DKR. A looser tie-in, I know, but both scenes are treated similarly and feature prominently in their respected trailers.

            

And then it happens. Pepper Potts picks up a broken Iron Man helmet, a symbol of our protagonist’s humiliating defeat. Hmm… I don’t seem to recall any movie in recent memory where our hero gets his ass handed to him and has his shattered headgear used prominently to convey the severity of the beating. Except I do.

            

Maybe my geek brain is just working overtime on this one. And for all we know at seven months out, the movie itself could turn out to be nothing like the pointy-eared one’s final outing. But from here and now it is clear as crystal that Iron Man 3’s first trailer is attempting to be reminiscent of DKR. Which is weird because, if internet-land is to be believed, aren’t these two franchises supposedly mortal enemies? Is Robert Downey Jr. not on record saying he didn’t understand The Dark Knight? Aren’t Marvel fans Hatfields and Dark Knight fans McCoys, with no middle ground or tolerance of liking both franchises?

            

Joking aside, there are far worse ways of creating buzz for your trailer and it would be a lie to say this trailer doesn’t do just that. Iron Man 3 opens May 3, 2013.

UPCOMING HOME VIDEO RELEASES (PT. 2)

The June releases are being a fucking pill. Here we are in late August, and not even half of June's offerings have solidified their home video release dates. Damn you, Hunger Games. You had to pick the 5 month release window and now you scared all the other movies off. I hope you're proud.

Movies in June that probably won't make too big of a splash on video (or aren't worth going in to too much detail): That's My Boy is October 16, Madagascar 3 is also October 16, Rock of Ages is October 9, Madea's Witness Protection is October 23.

Because July has roughly only two or three huge releases worth focusing on, Part 3 will include Ted and Magic Mike since there is zilch info concerning them at this point.

Snow White and the Huntsman

Blu-Ray Release Date: September 11 (Rental: October 9)

One bad casting decision can totally make a movie implode upon itself. Luckily, the casting of Kristen Stewart didn't completely sink Snow White and the Huntsman, since it has some genuinely enjoyable things going on.

This movie ultimately succeeds due to its strong visual style and scenery-chewing performance by Charlize Theron. And, to my surprise, K-Stew is actually tolerable for most of the movie. Only when she has to give the corny, faux-inspirational speech does my acceptance sputter.

The big thing with this release is that it is an extended edition. Whether that means that an entire subplot is put back in, the rating has changed, or it's approximately 52 seconds longer like most extended editions is still unclear. However I will be looking at the behind the scenes special features to catch a glimpse of the "special work relationship" between Stewart and the director. And/or how hard the producers try to sidestep that aspect.

MOVIE: +
SPECIAL FEATURES: +
DIGITAL COPY: +

Prometheus

Blu-Ray Release Date: October 11 (Rental: November 8)

On October 11th, prepare to experience the disagreement at home. One of 2012's most anticipated and controversial films is sure to bring some far from unanimous opinions to the household.

There are two distinctive reactions people have had to this movie. First there is the camp that sees it as a thrilling sci-fi ride; a gorgeous-looking movie that asks big questions and takes viewers on an entertaining journey with standout performances. The other half practically loathes the movie for taking its story ambiguity to the point of being sloppy and full of holes, not to mention the general retarded-ness of a majority of the characters.

More so than some other movies this summer, I fully get both sides of the argument. I lean more towards the first half since I was pulled in for two hours, but the lack of logic is so blatant that very few people are likely to not have a "what?" moment somewhere in the movie.

The big news that's spread in recent days is that the Blu-Ray is supposed to contain up to 40 minutes (?!?!?) of deleted scenes. If edited back into the movie, that's more than enough to classify it as an extended edition or director's cut. And judging by the names of each deleted scene, they could be what provides answers to the many questions the movie left us with.

Worth noting is that, like the (first) video release of Fox's other big space epic, Avatar, Prometheus is landing on a Thursday.

MOVIE: + (NO GUARANTEES, THOUGH)

SPECIAL FEATURES: +

DIGITAL COPY: +

Brave

Blu-Ray Release Date: November 13 (Rental: December 11)

Pixar once ruled over everything the light touched when it came to producing quality animation in everything from reviews, grosses, and awards consideration. Then Cars 2 came along and threw it off a cliff after smugly proclaiming "long live the king".  Now, rather than jump right back, it's going to take a little time to recooperate before it reclaims its throne.

Brave is not a bad movie. In fact, it's pretty good and I liked it for the most part. All the technical aspects you'd expect a Pixar movie to excel in are great. However, the story plays more like a light, whimsical, stereotypical Disney movie than something with a good deal of depth like most previous Pixar movies. It's not a big complaint since that formula is tried and true, but there's a chance that older audience members may not find as much to interest them.

There isn't any info concerning special features at the moment, but animated Disney movies usually contain a bunch of interactive games for the kids and shit like that. Sometimes there's a focus on the artwork or short featurette. Until further notice, there probably won't be much to look forward to with this one's special features. [Actually, the special features have been revealed to be extensive. So shut my mouth.]

Something I forgot to mention with The Avengers, Disney's digital copy system occasionally irks me. If a movie had a 3D release in theaters (basically every single movie they release now), Disney will only include the digital copy in the 3D combo pack edition and leave the regular Blu-Ray edition as just a Blu-Ray and a DVD. As one of few studios that still supports the iTunes digital copy, being forced to pay more to get it, along with an extra disc for the 3D version you'll likely never use, feels like a punishment.

MOVIE: +

SPECIAL FEATURES: +

DIGITAL COPY: + & -

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Blu-Ray Release Date: October 23 (Rental: November 20)

No doubt the title featured here that the fewest people have seen, the reason I included this one is because it has great potential to find new life on video.

Yes, you wondered about it but likely didn't shell out any money to go see it in theaters. But it's probably not because you didn't know what you were getting. There isn't much ambiguity to a movie like Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, although it does play things much more seriously than you may expect. Which, I found, made it more hilarious. Truthfully, this movie appeals to a very specific audience that can't be properly categorized, but those that find they enjoy it will likely help spread the word on it and, with time, may conceivably help it reach cult classic status.

MOVIE: FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF
SPECIAL FEATURES: ?
DIGITAL COPY: +

MOONRISE KINGDOM REVIEW

To allow you, my readers of any given article, in on my psyche for a brief moment, I sometimes feel bad about the fact that, because I am in a smaller city/medium-large town, I very rarely get the opportunity to review smaller, more independent movies when they are released in theaters. The reason for such being that they are almost never released in theaters here. I feel it sometimes makes me appear biased towards liking only the big-budget studio flicks and completely disregarding the indies. I do, in fact, like my fair share of smaller ventures. But if this bullshit is supposed to be what best represents a great independent movie, I'd choose the biggest, loudest blockbuster available any day of the week.

Moonrise Kingdom is about two misfit children, Sam Shakusky, the misunderstood orphan currently in a summer camp scout program, and Suzy Bishop, the outsider child of two lawyers, who decide to run away together on the vaguely east coast island they met on. Thus sparks a search party including everyone from Suzy's parents, Sam's scout leader, to the island police chief, and that creepy narrator guy who serves no purpose.

Not that he's ever been a box-office bombshell like the others, but Moonrise Kingdom is prime evidence for the argument that Wes Anderson is becoming the next Tim Burton, George Lucas, or any other once great filmmaker turned supposed hack. This movie reeks of being the product of a director who has escaped from having to answer to anybody and now does whatever he wants or doesn't want. Here, the want is to choose a premise and plug as many Anderson-isms as he can into it and the doesn't want is to tell a compelling story with interesting characters.

For a story that's inherently supposed to be warm and twee, Moonrise Kingdom is consistently cold and artificial. Anderson's omnipresent style suffocates the movie with its unnatural focus on having everything be quirky and different above everything else, not to mention majorly contradicts it. He clearly knows what he wants to technically do with the film, seeing how there is some very cool camera work, unique soundtrack choices, and playful editing; typical Wes Anderson stuff. But it's all similar to delivering extravagant trimmings with no real meat (story) as the centerpiece.

Barely anything that happens really matters or feels like it advances anything forward. Someone gets struck by lightning, a dog gets impaled by an arrow, that narrator dude I mentioned earlier pops up and gives mostly irrelevant information, and other wackiness happens. But there's no internal impact on the story or characters from it or even a reason for these things to happen in the first place. Even reactions as an audience member, whether they were intended to be comedic or tragic, didn't amount to more than a shrug.

None of the actors in this lineup are noteworthy. Even Murray and Schwartzman, Anderson's Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter regulars are wasted. Everyone may well have been on ambien because there are only fleeting glimpses of emotion that shine through. The veteran actors are at least able to keep from embarrassing themselves with the overly subdued acting style but the two main kids don't grasp Anderson's dialogue stanzas like others before have and get absolutely skewered by it. Unfortunately, they are the main focus of the movie and have the most drawn out scenes. After about 40 minutes in, having to watch them do little more than mumble like robots becomes near excruciating.

Believe it or not, this review is coming from the keyboard of someone who, statistically, likes most Wes Anderson movies. Rushmore and The Royal Tenenbaums are not only both very oddly funny but are also very investing and have their touching moments. The quirkiness comes naturally in order to serve the story (the most important thing). Moonrise Kingdom is only interested in piling the quirkiness on what's ultimately a non-existent foundation.

Die-hard fans of Anderson may find what they're looking for and excuse the absence of charm and investment but others who have already written it off as "hipster bullshit" probably won't find any reason to think otherwise.

3/10

UPCOMING HOME VIDEO RELEASES (PT. 1)

It's a fact that home viewing is largely the preferred form of movie watching these days. Now that the climax movie of the summer has seen the dark light of day in theaters and the season is winding down, it's about that time to look forward to when we can enjoy the biggest and bestest (arguable) this summer had to offer in the sanctity of our homes, now comparatively safer than ever.

I've mainly just thrown out my opinions for the last two months, so perhaps I'll do something helpful. Here are the deets on the home video releases of the four biggest movies released in May (The Dictator is August 21 and Chernobyl Diaries is October 16). Check back for the June releases at a time when more than only one has been announced.


The Avengers

Blu-Ray Release Date: September 25 (Rental: October 23)

The biggest movie of the summer will no doubt be the biggest Blu-Ray event of the fall. Disney is one of the leaders in putting together a great Blu-ray, so their most profitable movie ever should be nothing short of great. In addition to guaranteed top-tier picture and sound, the 3D combo pack comes with a free download of the soundtrack album and Whedon-filled behind the scenes goodies a-plenty, as well as a hard copy of the digital copy (compatible with iTunes).

Oh, in case you didn't hear, the movie also happens to be epic awesomesauce and many fans like myself will flock in droves to pick it up on release day.


Dark Shadows

Blu-Ray Release Date: October 2 (Rental: October 30)

Tim Burton's latest familiar-fest had the distinct honor of opening the week after The Avengers and I can't even imagine how much it suffered for it, financially (enough to be considered disappointing, but not quite a bomb -- maybe I can imagine). But, truthfully, this is the one movie I was this close to seeing the summer. I caught myself on the way out the door a couple times on the way to see Dark Shadows. I really like Burton's early works and this seems more in line with that Gothic style he does so well. The omnipresent criticism that he once again drops the story importance is what ultimately held me back.

As per every Warner Bros. title, you can expect one of those shitty Ultraviolet digital copies, the sole option they provide anymore for your digital copy needs, and a Maximum Movie Mode extra feature with highlights on Johnny Depp and production pinpoints and deleted scenes. Going to have to check this one out.

Battleship

Blu-Ray Release Date: August 28 (Rental: September 25)

Poor Taylor Kitsch. He's not a terrible actor but because he keeps getting stuck with the starring roles in these epic, epic bombs, people can't help but associate him with cinematic failure. It's really not his fault.

I'm also quite curious about this one. The best praise I've heard for Battleship is that it's stupid fun. Not "stupid fun" like Transformers, as in complete contempt for its audience by wasting most of its time on borderline retarded comedy, with the rest of it being incomprehensible, hollow action. Rather, it's been described as a "so stupid, it's entertaining" fun. Which I can totally dig. Hell, I enjoyed Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter more than I ever though I would, who's to say this will be any different.

Universal is also usually very impressive with their picture and sound, as well as including both kinds of digital copies and standard amount of behind the scenes featurettes. We shall see.

Men in Black 3

Blu-Ray Release Date: November 30 (Rental: December 28)

The Men in Black are back after a ten year hiatus, none of which was spent on choosing a decent story or building enthusiasm from any of the returning players. In case my views haven't permeated this intro enough, I didn't really care for MIB3. It came off as cheap, perfunctory, and just not all that entertaining, to my great regret.

Still, Sony does a pretty great job of their picture (which won't do any favors for those awful special effects) and sound. Not so much can be said for their singular offer of Ultraviolet digital copy, similar to Warner Bros. releases. Details were released prematurely a week ago and have since been pulled but appear to be pretty basic (making of, filming in 3D, trailer, etc.). Worth a rental. Maybe.

THOUGHTS ON THE DARK KNIGHT RISES OSCAR BUZZ

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences learned four years ago that they can't remain completely oblivious to the public's interests.

In 2008, The Dark Knight was the talk of the town (the town apparently being anywhere but Hollywood) to secure the fifth nomination slot for best picture at the upcoming Oscars.  However, despite garnering a total of eight nominations in the technical categories, the movie was snubbed in the major areas (picture, director, screenplay) and only walked away with wins in best sound editing and sound design, as well as the obvious best supporting actor trophy, posthumously awarded to Heath Ledger.

The following year the Academy amended its nomination rules and doubled the amount of movies eligible for best picture contention to ten, reportedly pressured by the backlash they faced for their previous exclusion. Christopher Nolan's next movie, Inception, was shown a little more love at that year's Oscar ceremony, begrudging as it felt, and did get nominated for best picture.

So when the sequel to the movie that switched things up in the first place was announced, everyone naturally wondered what kind of Oscar talk it would get upon release. Early press screenings told of standing ovations, tears, and best picture murmurings. Wide release reactions, though, weren't as unanimous as Dark Knight's  (for reasons that are worthy of their own sociology essay, in my book) and reactions at a recent academy screening were described as quiet and reaction-less.

What I'm here to say is that, by all indications, The Dark Knight Rises probably won't be nominated for best picture (and certainly won't win it) and how much acknowledgement it receives in other categories is uncertain, depending on the caliber of movies released around Oscar season.

I don't know why but I've always felt the academy doesn't care much for Christopher Nolan. They have yet to give him a directing nod for any of the great works he's turned in, and when they do nominate his movies for anything, it always feels forced and reluctant.

Maybe it's because he doesn't exactly make movies that appeal only to the sensibilities of the academy, the majority of which are older, white men (is there any other kind of top-tier society in the U.S.?),  but it seems like any reason they can find to dismiss him, they exploit it. The fact that The Dark Knight was the story of a man dressed in a batsuit seemed to be a big write-off, and that's obviously not going to change with Rises. And because the haters have made it their mission in life to point out nothing but the numerous plot holes in the movie, the academy has gotten all they need to completely ignore The Dark Knight Rises for consideration.

And you know what? I'm kind of ok with it. After these past couple years, unless they change their tune, I'm fucking done with the Oscars. Time and time again they've showed that they aren't representative of the best of what cinema has to offer in any given year. Rather, they are so very representative of which movies pander most to their core voter demographic and which bloated producer can pour the most money into campaigning. It's become a total jerk-off fest and to get your hopes up for a great movie to be nominated, much less the best movie out of all the nominees to win, is completely futile at this point.

The Dark Knight Rises is more moving, inspiring and engaging than any movie that's won best picture since No Country for Old Men (a movie that actually had polarizing reactions). The movies since then have been mostly bland and designed not to stir any thoughtful or dissenting reactions outside of "That was good. Why wouldn't it win best picture?". Purely and simply, they're fluff.

The fans of The Dark Knight Rises should be perfectly satisfied knowing that Nolan delivered a great and epic finale that, in some unique ways, is better than it's predecessors, regardless of what a cult of stuck up old people think about it. And the non-fans, well, like I said... sociology essay.