Tag Archives: drama

‘Knock Knock’ intense, frustrating

Here are the two reasons to watch Eli Roth’s Knock Knock:

  1. Keanu Reeves. Reeves gets knocked a lot for a lack of range. I prefer to think of Reeves as the DMX of acting: DMX doesn’t have the greatest range as a rapper, but he knows what he does well and he maximizes that. Reeves tends to be at his best reeled in, stoic, controlled. In Knock Knock, when shit starts to get hectic, we get to see cheating architect Evan (Reeves) rage against his tormentors, Bell (Ana de Armas) and Genesis (Lorenza Izzo). And when it looks like the deal is done, Evan’s fear is palpable. Even at his more subtle moments – such when Evan is trying to both be a polite host and keep himself from compromising his marital vows – Reeves kills it.  It may be the best performance by Reeves in a decade or so.
  2. This isn’t a horror movie. Don’t get me wrong: There are some traditional horror elements in Knock Knock. But really, the movie is an old school morality tale. Can’t resist temptation? Then you will pay, and you will pay dearly, even Biblically. Knock Knock doesn’t necessarily end how we, the audience, have been lead to believe it will throughout the course of the film. But one way or the other, Evan is ruined to the point where he might not ever come back from it simply because he wouldn’t remain faithful. I’m not a huge fan of Roth – I really like Hostel, am pretty lukewarm about Cabin in the Woods and Hostel Part II, haven’t seen Green Inferno and still think the best thing he has done was as an actor, the Bear Jew in Inglorious Basterds – but, save for one issue (see below), I was really impressed with his work here. Roth lays out the space of Evan’s home – our lone setting – impressively with the camera in the early going so we know the lay of the land once the action kicks in, and does a nice job of building the suspense and terror.

The lone drawback of Knock Knock:

  1. Rules, rules, rules. Genesis, the alpha female of our psychotic duo, talks frequently about rules. She mocks Evan for violating the bounds of marriage, noting that the lunacy she and Bell are raining down on him is the same punishment that they have given to other married men, none of whom have ever resisted the temptation of she and her sexy pal. Genesis punishes Evan for not answering questions, because it’s that time, and the rules are he has to answer her queries. And so on. The girls are very pointed about the necessity to keep to the rules, whether they are the accepted rules of matrimony or their own personal rules for this sort of encounter. But then the young women don’t follow their own rules. If the point is to punish Evan, why let Louis die? Louis, a friend/co-worker of Evan’s wife, shows up to gather some of her work for her gallery exhibit. The girls steal his asthma inhaler, work him up to the point where he has an attack, he loses his footing and falls, slamming his head into the heavy base of a sculpture and dies. Louis isn’t unfaithful. Louis isn’t really an ally of Evan’s. He’s just a guy doing a job. Then why is he punished? Sure, you can argue the girls are psychopaths, so of course they kill him and laugh at his death, because that’s what psychopaths do. But if you’re going to have killers with rules, the killers should follow the rules. Louis isn’t the target, and his death doesn’t really punish Evan (although it could have repercussions for him beyond the scope of the movie). It seems to be an arbitrary violation of the structure set forth by the killers and the filmmaker, undercutting what’s been established, and one that doesn’t really do much to further the story.
Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 reasons to watch ‘Mr. Robot’

5. Christian Slater. It’s been awhile since I’ve seen Christian Slater in something where he was doing anything other than a poor imitation of his persona from Heathers. Here, Salter’s character is the mysterious leader of a hacker group called F Society who is interested in crippling the global banking system, specifically with the idea to eliminate personal debt for everybody, truly allowing them to be free. He is duplicitous, self-righteous and manipulative. When he’s not on screen, you are left to wonder what schemes he might be following through on that are going to cause more stress for our main character, Elliot.

4. The hacking. Hollywood, of course, likes to put its spin on anything. Frequently, the entertainment industry works to romanticize or make glamorous that which is neither and is not meant to be either. And while I don’t know shit about programming, writing code or hacking, Mr. Robot seems to have a more realistic take on it than most of the shows and movies I’ve seen. It’s detail oriented, tedious, tests patience, an insider’s game. Mr. Robot manages to make hacking interesting enough without trying to make it sexy. They also do a nice job of using hacking scenes to build tension or give us insight to the mindset of the characters, rather than just using it as a means to an end to be rushed past so we can get to more interesting scenes.

3. The women. Don’t get me wrong: There are more than a few good looking women in Mr. Robot. But Darlene (Carly Chaikin), Trenton (Sunita Mani), Angela (Portia Doubleday), Shayla (Frankie Shaw) and Joanna (Stephanie Corneliussen) aren’t just there to be eye candy. Darlene and Trenton are both capable hackers. Darlene is the one who is forced to deal most with Elliot’s foibles and problems, trying to keep him on track and focused by any means necessary. Trenton is the conscience of the hacker group, motivated by more than just giving a middle finger to the man or hacking the impossible hack. Shayla is the one character that really humanizes Elliot in a way he and other characters can’t. Joanna might be the most delightfully dark and perverse femme since Catherine Trammell in Basic Instinct. And Angela, who initially ends up seeming as if she will be nothing more than the best friend with relationship issues, could end up having the most interesting story line outside of Elliot’s. These women aren’t just there to satisfy the Bechdel test. Each is a capable and interesting character, and their presence makes the story that much stronger.

2. Evil Corp. C’mon, we all think Apple, Microsoft, Wal-Mart, McDonald’s, etc., are Satan’s emissaries here on Earth. Mr. Robot is just a little more honest about it.

1. Remi Malek. The star of Mr. Robot is the man who makes this whole thing work. The hacking, the interpersonal drama, the corporate drama, the anarchy, the big Fight Club-esque twist. None of this can happen if Elliot, the character the whole shebang is centered around, is weak sauce. Elliot is emotionally cut-off (likely on the autism spectrum, frequently implied but never verbalized), battling mental health issues and drug addiction, still reeling from the loss of his father at an early age, unwilling to play the game the rest of the people around him play. As the madness swirls around him, Malek floats through Mr. Robot with his dark, intense eyes, hoodie up, lost in his own thoughts and ideas of what the world is and how it should be. There’s never a moment where his performance falters or seems off in any way.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The only thing we have to fear is another ‘Walking Dead’ spin-off

If these are the people you are trying to survive the zombie apocalypse with, you might as well just shoot yourself now.

If these are the people you are trying to survive the zombie apocalypse with, you might as well just shoot yourself now.

AMC, you’ve gone too far.

Better Call Saul was a great choice for a spinoff. You had a couple of interesting, vital, skeevy, secretive side characters, Saul and Mike, who were part Walter White’s story but weren’t really the focus of Breaking Bad, nor they should they have been. But there was so much going on with those two in Breaking Bad that exploring what got them to the point that they working with Heisenberg was a rich vein to mine, if done correctly. The first season proved Saul has something going on, and I can’t wait to see where the series goes next.

But AMC couldn’t stop there. No, we were force-fed Fear the Walking Dead. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty that could have been explored in the Dead-verse. For example, why not focus on the government response to the calamity. What was going on in statehouses? How did the president and his (or her) advisers react to the crisis? We were given a glimpse of the CDC reaction in Walking Dead, but why not follow the research component of response to this pandemic? Why not leave the United States and give us a cast in sub-Saharan Africa, Russia, India, the Philipines? Heck, how about the struggle of the folks up in the International Space Station as they try to figure out what has happened on the ground and how they’re going to get back? The possibilities are virtually endless, restrained only by the imagination of the creative team. Everything I wrote here I thought up as I was writing it. Surely, given time and resources, the Fear the Walking Dead folks could have developed something beyond my abilities.

Instead of a million interesting, unique scenarios, however, we were given a West-Coast version of the East-Coast show we were already watching. It feels like we’re being fed under-heated, leftover lasagna that was overcooked in the first place. We watched as different people made the same mistakes we’d already seen our plucky Walking Dead heroes make over and over again. But, hey, L.A.! That has to count for something, right?

It’s disappointing. It comes off as the sort of crass money grab one would expect from one of the major networks instead of something new and interesting from the cable network who has dropped some pretty interesting drama in our laps over the past five years or so. It’s not must-watch television, period. Heck, after the first season of Walking Dead, I could name most of the characters off of the top of my head. Notice how I haven’t mentioned any Fear the Walking Dead characters by name? That’s because not only do I not remember any names, I don’t consider it worth my time to hop over to IMDB and look them up.

So, sorry, AMC. I eagerly anticipate your small-screen version of the Preacher comic book series, and I’m sure I’ll get into some of your original programming down the road. But Fear the Walking Dead is about as interesting to me as AfterMASH or That 80’s Show. And so, much as I did with those shows and others like them, I’ll turn my attention elsewhere.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Disney-fication of the end of the world

The blandest love story ever told.

The blandest love story ever told.

The Giver is about a future civilization that exists on a mesa above the clouds all its own, no one ever going beyond the borders. There are strict rules about the sort of things you’d expect – don’t lie – as well as some more odd demands – don’t talk about the past. Families exist, but they are no longer based on genetics and people are assigned to these units. Everyone takes a daily dose of drugs to essentially neuter them emotionally and sexually. All because of how awful things used to be. Awful how? No one knows. Well, except one guy. He’s about to share the information, possibly with everyone in the settlement. And that may or may not be a good thing.

Not a bad premise. And, according to my daughter and wife, it was a pretty good book. But the movie … not so much.

It’s not that it’s not very good. In its own, clean, superficial way, it’s not bad. But it comes off as apocalypse-lite, a Disney-fied version of what could have been a darker, more interesting film. I kind of kept waiting for Fred MacMurray and the shaggy dog to appear during the black-and-white scenes, it was so pristine, straight-forward and dumbed-down.

I think, in the end, that’s what really ruined it for me, how The Giver insulted my intelligence. At the tail end of the film, our hero – whose name I don’t remember and isn’t worth my time to look up – marches a baby across the desert, feeding the baby with a bottle that seemingly appears from nowhere, and then both dress warmly for the mountain trek with extra clothes that, I don’t know, they picked up at a Dick’s Sporting Goods while we were watching the action back at the settlement. It was egregious and ridiculous, undercutting the seriousness of the moment.

My advice? Skip it. We’re about to get big-screen doses of The Hunger Games and The Maze Runner that will likely far exceed what The Giver has to offer.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why MTV’s ‘Scream’ did and didn’t work

Familiar, but not the same.

Familiar, but not the same…

Writer’s note: This was initially, accidentally published before completion. So if some of this looks familiar, well, it might be. Also, there are going to be some spoilers, so you were warned.

Two reasons to like the Scream series on MTV …

  1. MTV pays due tribute. The disfigured, outcast madman from years before, the person who is not among our new Scream-ers but at the center of its mystery, is killed at a lake, an homage to Friday the 13th. That’s probably the least subtle nod, and there are tips of the hat to Halloween and Saw, as well. Hell, at one point I was sure I saw an exterior shot that had to be the old Buffy Summers’ residence. But what I thought was both fairly daring and a great change that set the show apart from the movies is the new mask. That’s precisely the sort of change that usually drives genre fans bugshit. But the mask wasn’t just changed for the sake of change. The change is tied to the new story, and it’s still true to the movie mask. It was a small but key change, and shows some of the thought that went into this endeavor.
  2. The ending. The creative team had me fooled, no doubt. I was convinced it was the sheriff and his son behind the murder. Then the killer was revealed, and it appeared that there was only one, which would have been a change from the original. But as the very end showed, there was at least one person who had regular contact with the killer prior to the murder spree. We don’t know the depths of said person’s involvement, but it’s a peek at what we might expect next season. It was a nice move that saved a somewhat anti-climactic season finale.
Yes, the dialogue was bad, but it wasn't that bad. ... OK, it was pretty horrifying.

Yes, the dialogue was bad, but it wasn’t that bad. … OK, it was pretty horrifying.

Three reasons not to like the Scream reboot.

  1. The dialogue. It’s bad. It’s awful. It’s atrocious. It’s … so bad we might need a new word to describe it. Part of what made the original Scream movie so fresh was that, unlike the many horror flicks that it was parodying, the kids were fairly smart, aware and funny instead of just attractive, dim-witted meat for the slasher grinder. MTV’s Scream often acts like it uses some random, genre-based, dude-bro/basic-bitch phrase generator to come up with dialogue. Among the adults, it’s hyper-serious and too spot-on. When some truly terrible phrase exits the mouth of one of the actors, it’s hard to stay in the moment within the drama. Noah, the series horror-movie fan stand-in for Jamie Kennedy’s Randy, is forced to spew half-assed, poorly set-up monologues far too frequently. The overall dialogue is so bad, even my 13-year-old daughter mocked it with regularity. Something to work on for Season 2.
  2. The cast and the characters they play. I thought, when it came to the adults, the casting was pretty well done. But with the teens … I think it can be summed up by Bella Thorne’s appearance in the pilot. The Disney star is the token big name who bites it in the opening scene, a good choice to relate to the target audience. However, unlike Drew Barrymore in the original Scream, we’re in no way sad to see Thorne’s Nina bite it. Drew’s character is a little catty and flirty, but also genuine and a fighter when the knives come out. Thorne is convincing as a bitchy teenager, but it’s a wasted performance because it isn’t what we need from the character. We need to have a rooting interest in Nina, but that’s not developed. It’s a poor match for Thorne, and it was the wrong way to go for the character. And that sums up plenty of the younger cast members in Scream. With the possible exception of Bex Taylor-Klaus’s outcast lesbian Audrey, there are too many poorly thought-out characters played by actors who don’t have the chops to elevate their roles.
  3. The ending. Yes, I know I just praised the ending. But the problem with the end is related to issue No. 2 above. Amelia Rose Blair, who plays podcast journalist Piper Shaw, is horrible. The wardrobe people put a pair of horn-rimmed glasses about two sizes two big on Shaw in an attempt to make her look like a Smart, Serious Journalist. She mostly looks like a kid who stole her dad’s eyewear. Plus, Blair can’t pull off acting concerned or intelligent, as if she’s never had the opportunity to witness or experience either. And when the big reveal comes that she’s our killer, she’s about as scary as a toddler dressed as a vampire heading out to trick-or-treat. I think the storyline could have worked much better had the Scream folks found an actress who could carry the weight. Blair was not the right woman for the job.

In the end, MTV did just enough to get me back for the second season. The first season was uneven but entertaining, and the set-up for the next round seems promising. Plus, my daughter and I had a lot of fun MST3K-ing from the cheap seats as the body count rose. Bonding over buckets of blood will keep us engaged for at least one more go ’round.

And now I’ll let my daughter’s words wrap this piece up. “She can’t carry everything she needs for school in that bag. My biology book wouldn’t even fit in there. … What kind of school is this?”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Humanity of ‘Humans’ is what makes series work

Anita is a Synth fresh out of the box ... or is she?

Anita is a Synth fresh out of the box … or is she?

I wanted to like Humans more.

At the family level, it works so well. When we’re with the Hawkins clan and their human-like robotic caretaker, Anita, Humans is in top form. The five Hawkins work well together and form a believable, likable and flawed family. Anita’s insertion into the tense marital relationship of Joe and Laura, new “mom” for little Sophie, ideal female form for horny teen Toby and constant reminder that humans are becoming obsolete to the oldest Hawkins kid, Mattie, all make for incredibly well-acted and crafted scenes and explore what the introduction of synthetic humans would mean at the personal level for real humans. You get more touches of that with William Hurt’s Dr. George Millican, a once leading scientist in the Synth field now losing his memories, relying on his Synth and de facto son Odi to remind him of events from his and his wife’s life together. Another ripple is added when we meet Pete Drummond, a detective whose ailing wife is cared for by a Synth that makes him feel worthless as he simultaneously draws the loving attention of his partner, Karen. These three storylines nail the impact of human simulations being released in the real world. It’s a unique mix of awkward, horrifying and touching drama.

Had the first season mostly focused on that, it might have become my favorite show on television. The problem is the dramatic sci-fi storyline, that a handful of synths were created to have consciousness. Humans who already fear the impact of synths on unemployment and the world in general would now have to be concerned that they could be replaced entirely. This part of the story doesn’t flow as well and feels uncomfortable next to the more personal side of the tale. The ending of the first season was clearly also planned to be the ending of the series, just in case. Things get wrapped up a little too quickly and neatly.

Following in the wake of Ex Machina probably doesn’t help me appreciate Humans as much, either. Ex Machina was a taut, quickly paced and intense drama that delved into the impact of AI on our world. Humans is broader, sometimes for the better, other times not so much. Its pace is slower and occasionally uneven, with tension lacking when the danger should be felt most. Where Ex Machina was lean and furious, Humans is too often top heavy and overly earnest.

Will I return for a second season of Humans? Humans hasn’t blown me away like the AMC dramas Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead and Hell on Wheels did. I may do something I don’t usually do and read advance reviews of season two to get a sense of where Humans is going and then decide. Until then, I’m firmly in the maybe column.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Is ‘Big Red One’ a lost classic?

Luke Skywalker, Lewis from 'Revenge of the Nerds' and American badass Lee Marvin kick the Germans of out of Northern Africa and follow them the whole way back to their homeland in 'The Big Red One.'

Luke Skywalker, Lewis from ‘Revenge of the Nerds’ and American silver screen badass Lee Marvin kick the Germans out of Northern Africa and follow them the whole way back to their homeland in ‘The Big Red One.’

The Big Red One is the longest continuously serving division in U.S. Army history, constituted in 1917. In World War II – the period covered by this particular film – the division saw action in Northern Africa, was part of the invasions of Sicily and Normandy, and clashed with the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge. Yeah, this film has an epic sprawl going on, and it serves the story well.

The Sergeant (Lee Marvin) is a WWI veteran tasked with leading his fresh-faced soldiers through some of the most dangerous theaters of WWII. Private Zab (Robert Carradine, Revenge of the Nerds), a budding author, is the narrator, a wise-ass who is usually the one doing things to lighten the mood. Mark Hamill (Star Wars) is Private Griff, who struggles periodically in combat to keep it together, freezing at inopportune moments. An assortment of other soldiers come and go over the course of their odyssey.

For comparison, I’d call The Big Red One a low-budget Saving Private Ryan. The story and the scenery have the broad scope that Spielberg put together in his film, even going further than Ryan in that “The Bloody First” cover a lot more territory in the Eastern hemisphere over the course of their adventures. The budget … well, let’s just say The Big Red One‘s landing in Normandy is significantly less impressive than Private Ryan‘s.

But, again, like Ryan, it’s the focus on the characters that makes the film, particularly the Sergeant and Private Griff. The Sergeant has seen war before and has clearly been hardened by it. But there are moments, between the bombs and bullets, where the Sergeant finds peace and displays great compassion. He understands the importance of small gestures in the midst of terrible violence, and he finds solace in that.

Griff is torn by fear and his desire to not let down his comrades. The first time he freezes, no one notices amid the smoke and explosions. But at Normandy, his deer-in-the-headlights moment is on display for everyone. He overcomes it, but it’s not exactly a kumbaya moment that snaps him out of it.

The only thing that holds back The Big Red One is Carradine’s narration. While it occasionally serves as a bridge between scenes, particularly when a change of territory or passage of time comes into play, it doesn’t add much and at points is a bit annoying. The film really didn’t need it.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Wayward Pines’ aces the Season 1 test

Kate (Carla Gugino) gets more than she bargains for in her attempt to escape Wayward Pines.

Kate (Carla Gugino) gets more than she bargains for in her attempt to escape Wayward Pines.

I was wary of Wayward Pines.

It came down to two things. The first was the name “M. Night Shyamalan” propped up prominently in the advertising. Most of his work since The Village has been the film equivalent of a raging tire fire, and after what he did to Avatar: The Last Airbender, I wasn’t sure I’d ever watch anything he was involved in again. However, Shyamalan deserves some credit here for making Wayward Pines work. His tendencies to lean on moody atmosphere and a deliberative pace in the pilot set the tone for the rest of the first season. I wonder if working off another’s material – the series is based on the books by Blake Crouch – as well as working on a television series, which is more collaborative than the auteur role Shyamalan is used to as a film director, is part of what is responsible. If so, that mix has proven potent, and Wayward Pines can head in some interesting directions from what’s been established already.

The second thing that concerned me were the comparisons to Twin Peaks that were popping up in early reviews. I view Twin Peaks as one of the most uniquely twisted shows in the history of television, almost sacred because of the swirl of odd humor, kinky otherworldliness and dark underpinnings that are unmatched. Well, it turns out I didn’t have anything to worry about, because those reviews were dead wrong. Wayward Pines is distinctly lacking in sense of humor, which isn’t a put down. That’s just not what the show is, and it’s the easiest thing to point to as a difference when comparing it to Twin Peaks. Also, in Twin Peaks, the secrecy that drives the show is the hidden lies of the townspeople who are living the small-town, American dream. Wayward Pines‘ secrecy is more about the workings of the town itself, how it came to be, why it is so isolated, the planned machinations happening behind the scenes and what those machinations result in. Really, Wayward Pines feels much more like Lost than Twin Peaks.

FBI agent Ethan Burke (Matt Dillon) won't follow the party line in Wayward Pines: Don't talk about the past, don't go past the wall.

FBI agent Ethan Burke (Matt Dillon) won’t follow the party line in Wayward Pines: Don’t talk about the past, don’t go past the wall.

Hopefully, the Lost comparison won’t extend past the first season. The ending of season one changes the focus of Wayward Pines, spinning the plot in a different direction. The cast could potentially be radically different as well, even after the culling of familiar faces throughout the first season. The potential is there for long-term success, if the show and the folks running it can maintain the balance of plausibility of the action with the more far-out, fantastic elements that are part of this cloistered world.

If not, it could get … well, lost, for lack of a better way to put it. The ending of season one leaves the show dangling on a precipice, a radical change of course charted for the upcoming season. Abandoning the situation as it was, moving ahead a few years, could test the patience of fans if it is not handled delicately, possibly even alienate fans who would like more of what they saw and aren’t ready to push on.

I, for one, have hope. We’ll see if that hope is rewarded.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No ‘Jaws’? Seeing ‘Jurassic’ for free not a worthy substitute

If I had actually paid to get into see 'Jurassic World,' I'm sure my reaction would have been much like this.

If I had actually paid to get into see ‘Jurassic World,’ I’m sure my reaction would have been much like this.

For Father’s Day, the family went to see the 40th anniversary showing of Jaws. The kids have never seen Jaws, and as it’s my favorite creature flick, we were ready for some bloody fun.

Unfortunately, the theater had not received the film in time for the showing we were attending. We were bummed, but the manager offered us – and what seemed like a fairly long line of people hoping to see Jaws – the opportunity to see any other movie for free. As my son has been dying to see Jurassic World, we chose a 3-D showing of the dino flick.

So here’s my 11-word review of Jurassic World: It wasn’t worth the price we didn’t pay to see it.

Sure, the dinos looked cool, and seeing them in 3-D added a little oomph. I’m not sure that was ever a concern, though. The problem with the Jurassic series has never been the over-sized, newly un-extinct reptiles. Beyond the first film in the series, it’s always what has been going on with the humans that causes problems.

Same here. The two brothers, shown above, are serviceable. However, these kids are pretty much just the two from the first movie, subtract one white girl, add one white boy. Instead of hanging with their grandpa who owns the park, they’re hanging with their aunt who runs the park. Instead of riding around in a jeep before a grumpy dinosaur sets them on another path, they ride in a gerbil ball before a grumpy dinosaur sets them on another path. And so on. The writing and the plot are some seriously lazy, weak fucking sauce. And it took four extremely overpaid people to come up with this lazy, weak fucking sauce.

You’d hope, of course, Chris Pratt might be able to save the film. And had they let Pratt be Pratt – or, in this case, Indiana Jones, since that’s who he looked like throughout the flick – that would’ve worked. Instead, they gave him no real sense of humor and tried to make him a sensitive yet macho-posturing bad guy with nothing but rote, obvious lines to spew. Bryce Dallas Howard fares worse, because her character is supposed to be a stiff, so she has even less to work with than Pratt. Their romantic coupling at the end is trite and unbelievable. There’s more chemistry between Pratt and the CGI predators than there is between the human leads. Hell, there’s more chemistry between Pratt and corporate soldier baddy Vincent D’Onofrio than there is between Pratt and Howard.

No more Jurassics for me. Period. … But I still can’t wait to see Jaws.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bad trailers=bad movies: 5 summer flicks I have no interest in seeing

5. Teminator: Genisys. I can see why the minds behind this thought it was a good idea, seeing the talent involved. But other than the John Connor twist – which is a pretty huge giveaway for a trailer – most of this looks like it could have been pulled straight out of the first few movies. Yes, you have a rich history to work with, but the last part of the Terminator franchise to escape from that shadow and be something fresh and interesting was the TV series, The Sarah Conner Chronicles. Add to that the problem of the last two Terminator movies having dulled my taste for the franchise, and not even Daenarys Targaryan as Sarah Connor is enough to make me reconsider this one.

4. Vacation. If I was a huge fan of the Vacation franchise, I probably would have ranked this higher, but I always preferred Chevy Chase in films such as Fletch, Foul Play and Caddyshack over his Clark Griswold performances. This film it looks like it could be worse than The Hangover II and The Zookeeper, combined.

3. Ant-Man. This is the lone time I have had zero interest in seeing flick that’s part of the Avengers’ Marvel universe. I thought Ant-Man was a bad idea when they announced it. Then Marvel kicked director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead) off the project, and I really thought it was a bad idea. This trailer does nothing to change my mind. I’ve often thought that there are some things that just won’t translate well from comics, and I think this looks like example No. 1 of that theory. The truly unfortunate thing about all of this is I probably can’t avoid this film because of my daughter’s love of Paul Rudd, aka Bobby Newport from Parks & Recreation.

2. Poltergeist. How bad is this trailer? My 10-year-old, who occasionally will terrify himself so much that he’ll run the 7 feet from his bedroom to our living room at night just to not be in the dark, “scary” hallway, mocks this trailer every time we see it. Poltergeist just looks like another Insidious knock-off, now. An unimaginative, blatant, studio cash grab, nothing more.

1. Jurassic World. OK, so it isn’t just the trailer that makes this flick a no-go. Loved the first one, like a lotta folks, but the second one was awful. In the second Jurassic Park book, Michael Crichton envisions a chameleon-like dinosaur that is able to camouflage itself. When the movie hit theaters, I was excited to see what Steven Spielberg – the king of the big, fx-heavy summer blockbusters – would do with that. The answer: Nothing. And Stevie made up a new, significantly shittier ending. So I’m not getting burned again. This trailer, other than some new dinos, looks to be for a film that has nothing new to offer. Plus, if that one sex joke is the best they’ve given Chris Pratt to work with, the Jurassic minds are even more bereft of imagination than I ever would have expected.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,