Movie Review: "Side Effects"

Some might say that Steven Soderbergh's Side Effects is a commentary on our nation's dependance on prescription medication masquerading as a thriller. Now, while I don't think these people are necessarily incorrect in their analysis, I can't say I agree with them. Side Effects is, for better or worse, a thriller that may have a few lines of dialogue that imply a greater message but doesn't really say anything all that profound. And that's what makes Soderbergh's final theatrical film (his HBO movie, Behind the Candelabra, airs this Sunday) so odd. Side Effects plays like a more realistic version of those convoluted but fascinating thrillers from the 1980s. In fact, Soderbergh names Adrian Lynne, director of Fatal Attraction, as one of his influences for the film. And as a straightforward thriller it is quite effective. I expected something more profound from Soderbergh's last big film. But, I still can't find much to complain about because Side Effects is still a solid thriller, even if it can't stand up to Soderbergh's better films.

Many claimed back in February that the trailer for Side Effects spoiled key plot details. While I wouldn't say that's true, I do think that this is a film in which the audience will benefit from not knowing what's going to happen. On the surface, yes, Side Effects is a murder mystery in which pills may (or may not) be involved but the film quickly evolves into something more when audiences realize that everybody has something to hide and that it's hard to believe what you are seeing on screen. For it's first hour or so, Side Effects is a fascinating mystery with a number of surprising twists. But, once audiences start getting answers, the film becomes a bit too obvious and the twists may not be as surprising as they once seemed. Even more upsetting is the way the film ties up its loose ends with a long monologue that quickly answers all the audiences's questions. The film also takes a bit too long to wrap up, with quite a few scenes that would serve as a suitable ending. But while the quality of the screenplay certainly lessens, it never truly dips and is ultimately worthy of some praise, even if it isn't something to go raving about. 

Someone who is worth raving about, however, is Rooney Mara, who's performance as the heavily medicated Emily makes the film. Similar to her Oscar nominated performance in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Mara brings an intensity to the screen like few actresses working today. She can be terrifying and mysterious without ever going to over the top. Mara is the center of the film and she gives it her all. In fact, I'd say it'd be a lesser film without her. But the deck is stacked when it comes to the cast of Side Effects, as Mara finds herself sharing the screen with Jude Law for much of the film and he more than holds his own. Law has the rare quality of being a recognizable face around Hollywood but never allowing his celebrity status to interfere with his ability to disappear into a role. Yet again, Law is completely convincing. Then you have Catherine Zeta-Jones, an actress who (more often than not) camps it up on the big screen but holds back here, making her small but significant role memorable. And Soderbergh proves yet again that Channing Tatum is capable of much more than just being a sex symbol as the superstar gives a reserved, completely natural performance.

Side Effects is also a well made movie, which is exactly what I've come to expect from a talent like Soderbergh. From top notch cinematography to a stellar score by Thomas Newman, the film is a technical marvel. Soderbergh (under his cinematographer pseudonym Peter Andrews) has some wonderful shots in the film that evoke classic Hitchcock, as well as some visually stunning moments involving mirrors and reflections that tie in with the film's theme. The score also fits the tone of the film perfectly- its deeply ominous but always subtle enough to not overpower the movie.

But Soderbergh's career is filled with well made films that are still much better than this. From Traffic to sex,lies, and videotape to my personal favorite, Out of Sight, the best films in his fimography only prove that Side Effects will, in the long run, not hold up as well as his others. And it's sad to think that one of the best directors of this generation will go out on a note that, while still quite high, is low for him. And much of these problems that drag the film down can account for a script that can't keep its momentum through the whole thing. Yet, I'm still giving the film a strong recommendation because Soderbergh and his cast (specifically Mara) elevate the film high above the level that any other director or star would. And, if this truly is Soderbergh's farewell to filmmaking, it's somewhat of a relief that the movie proves how talented he is, even if he's working with lesser material.

OVERALL GRADE: B+

"Side Effects" is currently available on DVD and Blu-Ray.

Movie Review: "Star Trek Into Darkness"

Amidst the action, special effects, and broadly appealing comedy there was something about the previous Star Trek film that just worked. It was an almost magical quality that brought life to the film and helped make everything that's cheesy and manufactured in a majority of summer blockbusters become genuine and emotional. Four years later, Star Trek Into Darkness has finally hit the big screen with hopes to continue the long running series series. And it has all the action you'd expect, state of the art special effects, and dozens of one liners. Essentially, it has everything you'd expect to see in a summer movie. Everything except that magical quality.

First thing's first- do not read any spoilers about the film prior to seeing it. Paramount has done a remarkable job at keeping much of the film's plot under wraps and while the story never really breaks new ground it was oddly refreshing to watch a film and not have every single plot development spoiled for me by a trailer or review. And while this story isn't as emotionally charged as its predecessor, it's still quite compelling and interesting, if not a bit too convuluted. The film changes focus a few times too many, with character's true motivations being a bit clouded and inconsistent. Meanwhile, different subplots are used to introduce plot devices where a quick exchange of dialogue between two characters would accomplish the same tasks in considerably less time. And any evil plans introduced are not really explained all that well- like many summer films before it, viewers are expected to believe a character is evil 'just because'. But, like the last film, Into Darkness introduces a main theme in it's opening scene and uses it throughout in a way that doesn't feel nearly as cheesy or manipulative as it could have. And it really is remarkable that the script manages to give every major character a moment to shine, even with three news characters climbing aboard.

The cast is also phenomenal and rivals The Avengers in terms of chemistry between stars. Every actor feels perfectly suited for their individual roles but can also play off the others well. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto are a fascinating onscreen pair as they find a common emotional ground between their very different characters. Meanwhile Zoe Saldana deserves quite a bit of credit for bringing a sense of attitude and emotion to Uhura. While she doesn't have as much to do as her male counterparts, she's completely believable and charismatic. But much of the attention is built around Benedict Cumberbatch, who's role as the primary antagonist has been kept shrouded in secrecy. The actor brings a very theatrical flair to the whole production that could have gone a bit too over the top had he been given more screen time, but the film always cuts away at just the right time, leaving his character sinister and not cartoon like. The remainder of the cast- specifically the always funny Simon Pegg- do a solid job as well.

But let's face it: this is a summer movie, and audiences are going for the thrills. And there are certainly thrills to be had. The film opens with an intense chase on a strange planet while another character is lowered into a volcano that's about to explode. It only gets bigger from there. Into Darkness is epic in terms of size and scope, and each new action scene manages to feel unique. Much like the previous movie, the highlight of the film involves the characters flying through space at an incredibly fast speed, but every sequence brings something new to the table and the sequences never fall flat. What's strange, however, is that the film moves at an almost too quick pace once the characters voyage into space, with an action sequence that essentially starts at the 30 minute mark and doesn't end until the credits begin, only taking short breaks that are only slightly less intense. On one hand, audiences will never be bored. On the other, it really ruins the films central structure. If the film is set up only to end in one long, 90 minute scene, doesn't that mean it's a bit of a mess?

And then there's the fact that, despite these solid action scenes, none of them ever really get all that exciting. They all feel like less entertaining versions of some of the best moments from the original. They aren't technically worse than those in the original, and in fact have many similar qualities. But by failing to improve or even match the original moments in terms of entertainment, they inadvertently become worse. As a whole, Star Trek Into Darkness is very similar in tone and structure to Star Trek. Unlike many other movie sequels, the film doesn't really take on a darker, more mature tone (despite what the title may suggest) and it doesn't strive to be any more or less epic than it's predecessor. And that's all fine, but if a sequel wants to evoke the film that came before it, then everyone involved must work pretty damn hard to improve upon it. So, on one hand, Star Trek Into Darkness is quality entertainment. Audiences will go home happy. But audiences will also be pleased with 2009's Star Trek. So, why go with the newer model when the last one does all the same things better?

Now I will admit: 2009's Star Trek is one of my favorite action films of all time. It was, and still is, an incredibly exciting film with so much life and energy that it's impossible to not have a good time. So, any sequel would have gigantic shoes to fill and those without my sky high expectations will probably like it much more. But the truth is, sequels are supposed to bring something new to a franchise. Otherwise, audiences would get bored and eventually stop caring, especially when they can pay less money and watch a more entertaining version of the same film at home. So, like the last Trek, J.J. Abrams fills almost every minute of this movie with spectacle and suspense, while the uniformly lovable cast trade witty one liners. But where the first film felt fresh, Into Darkness feels a bit stale. Yes, it's still entertaining and audiences will certainly get their money's worth. But Star Trek is a film I've found myself wanting to revisit time and time again. And if I ever feel the desire to return to the franchise, I promise you it will never lead me to this movie.

OVERALL GRADE: B-

Brief, Three Day Hiatus

Due to an overload of work over the next three days, I won't be blogging until Wednesday night. Sorry!

Movie Review: "The Great Gatsby"

This isn't your grandfather's Gatsby.

Colorful costumes. Extravagant sets. Music video editing. A soundtrack featuring the best of the rap and rock genres working today. This is not a faithful adaptation of Fitzgerald's classic in terms of tone. But Baz Luhrmann has brought his signature style to one of the most beloved novels of all time, making for a film that will no doubt anger purists but will certainly entertain more open minded audience members. And while Luhrmann emphasizes the melodramatic side of the novel, there are subtle moments (well, subtle for a Baz Luhrmann film) that show he really does understand the meaning behind the novel.

In an odd way, The Great Gatsby feels like the film that Luhrmann has been working towards for his whole career. With Nick narrating the story from his typewriter, a la Christian in Moulin Rouge!, and a frantic opening that thrusts you right into the action, much like Romeo + Juliet, many elements from Luhrmann's previous films are plainly visible. That shouldn't be a surprise- Luhrmann is one of the most distinct directors working today. Love him or hate him, there is no denying he has a style that is unique, and his presence surges through the film. This far from a subtle movie, with the quieter scenes in the novel being brought to new dramatic heights and party scenes that are wildly over the top yet oddly symbolic of the devil may care attitude of the 1920s. The film is more interested in providing audiences eye candy to accompany their popcorn and soda rather than a four course meal of food for thoughts, which I'm sure will upset many but I have to ask- is that a bad thing?

The Great Gatsby has been adapted numerous times, and none of those films were ever met with a necessarily positive response. Even this film, while on track to be a box office success, has been saddled with mixed to negative reviews. And anybody who has read the novel can tell you that it's a tough book to adapt. It is rich with symbolism and thoughtful prose that is riveting to read but is more likely to bore audiences when filmed on the big screen. Many will claim that Luhrmann is slaughtering the American classic- that he is taking Fitzgerald's masterpiece and making it a film for the ADD/MTV generation to digest easily and without much analysis. But that is a lazy criticism. Yes, this version of The Great Gatsby is more over the top then I'm sure Fitzgerald ever intended it to be. But Luhrmann shows a deep understanding of the novel throughout the film.

While the film may not go as in depth as a high school English teacher would like, Luhrmann manages to show an understanding of the characters and uses some very theatrical devices to emphasize their crucial traits. Take, for example, the unique tone of voice many of the characters speak in. All of the actors have adopted a style of speaking reminiscent of those in classic films- something that only adds to the staged nature of the movie. But notice the way the characters speak. For Carey Mulligan (Daisy) and Joel Edgerton (Tom), actors that are playing "old money" characters, the voices feel natural. But Leonardo DiCaprio's voice feels odd, almost fake, and while I initially thought this was just a mistake he made as an actor, I quickly realized that this was a conscious decision made by the filmmakers. It makes sense that Gatsby's voice would sound fake, as Gatsby's status as a rich man is fake. And, whenever Gatsby's facade as a rich man begins to crumble away, DiCaprio's natural voice slips out. It's a brilliant decision for both the actors and filmmaker.

Then you have the characterization of Daisy. Luhrmann refuses to put the character into a box or make her a simple romantic lead, as a lesser director probably would. He doesn't shy away from Daisy's negative qualities- she's still shallow and manipulative. Her materialism is perfectly captured during a scene in which Gatsby showers her with the beautiful shirts he has acquired with his new money. It is the first time in the film where her affection for Gatsby really shines through. But Luhrmann also asks audiences to consider if Daisy is this way simply because of the times she lives in and the situation she finds herself in. A wonderful moment in the film finds Tom making a collar of sorts around Daisy's neck with a beautiful pearl necklace he gave her as a gift. It'd be too easy for a director to abandon the complexities in her character and make the film a by-the-numbers love story. Somebody who was going for a merely entertaining movie would probably take that route. Luhrmann did not, and I respect him for that.

The cast is also (almost) perfect. Leonardo DiCaprio was born to play the role of Gatsby. For one thing, Leo is the definition of a movie star, both in terms of social status and in terms of physical appearance. Yet, there is an oddly mysterious and tortured quality visible in many of his character's and performances, making him perfect for the role of this haunted millionaire. But, to my surprise, he is not the best actor in the film. That title belongs to Miss Carey Mulligan, who I was vehemently against upon hearing the announcement of her casting. I now feel obligated to apologize to her. She is absolutely brilliant in the movie, perfectly embodying Daisy and stealing every scene she's in. There is a certain elegance to her performance that would make her feel right at home with the biggest actresses of the golden age of film history, while the always present sadness in her eyes brings a dark reality to her seemingly perfect existence. For the longest time I was convinced that Mulligan would be the wrong choice for the part. But now I can't imagine anybody else in the role. Joel Edgerton, Isla Fischer and newcomer Elizabeth Debicki also do a wonderful job in their roles and are worthy of praise.

But their is a weak link in this cast of A-listers, and this link really damages the film as a whole. Tobey Maguire is just the wrong choice for the crucial role of Nick, a character who is responsible for sharing the story with audiences. Maguire is not the strongest actor to begin with, but he just feels sorely miscast in this part. He lacks chemistry with any of the actors, and his performance feels flat and passionless. But worst of all, his narration- much of which is taken directly from the pages of the novel- feels tacked on, mainly due to the lack of certainty Maguire brings to his character. Does Nick have feelings for Jordan? How does he feel about Tom? Is he depicting the story in a truthful manner? Does he admire Gatsby, or maybe even have romantic feelings for him (as many overzealous literary critics would like to believe)? I'm not sure, and I don't think Maguire does either. In any other part, Maguire's performance would be simply disappointing. But he's playing a crucial character in the story, and he drags the film down with his incompetent acting.

Luhrmann's fast paced style also comes to a screehing halt before reaching the final third of the story, with the film largely dragging before returning to a fast paced style as the story wraps itself up. But for the most part, Luhrmann's style really works in the film's favor. The party scenes, specifically towards the beginning of the movie, are wonderfully staged. The use of music complements the scenes perfectly, whether it be a rap by Jay-Z, a ballad by Lana Del Ray, or a jazz version of "Crazy in Love."The cinematography and art direction will, no doubt,  be remembered come Oscar season. And the best scene in the film, a confrontation between Gatsby and Tom in a hotel room on a hot day, is worth the price of admission alone for being an entertaining example of melodrama while also capturing the subtext behind the scene and exhibiting perfect acting from all involved. It's just a shame that the film really loses that sense of pacing for about ten to twenty minutes.

When The Great Gatsby vacated its Christmas release date, many felt the film would prove to be a disaster. But the move now makes perfect sense. The Great Gatsby is not Oscar fare- it's a summer movie, replacing action scenes with wild parties and superheroes with a mysterious rich man. Luhrmann's interpretation of the classic is melodramatic, but in the most entertaining way possible, and while the meaning behind the text is downplayed, it is hardly forgotten. The movie is not perfect and I doubt I'll be remembering it as I construct my Top 10 list at the end of the year, but I wouldn't be surprised if this movie proves to be the most fun I'll have at the theater this summer.

OVERALL GRADE: B+

Betting on the Box Office: Stark vs. Fitzgerald vs. Perry

After an incredible opening weekend, the summer movie season marches on with The Great Gatsby and Peeples both trying to get some attention from audiences that have already seen Iron Man 3 or don't plan on seeing it. But how much can an adaptation of a beloved literary classic make at the superhero dominated box office? Or a romantic comedy from a niché producer? Let's see-

The Great Gatsby (dir. Baz Luhrmann)

When Warner Bros. first moved The Great Gatsby from it's Christmas release to the second week of May I was ready to call it a flop. But, a few months later, I've changed my tune considerably. In fact, I can really see the film being a success at the box office. Or, at the very least, I predict a solid opening weekend.

Anticipation for The Great Gatsby seems to be quite high thanks to a very impressive and effective marketing campaign that emphasizes the film as a fun, exciting and visually stunning film with a romance that will appeal to the ladies and a male lead that can be counted as one of the few box office draws left. Granted, it won't have a major opening, but an opening north of $30 million and nearing $40 is very likely. The film is both effective counter marketing but has enough spectacle to it to draw some of the crowd that has already seen Iron Man but is looking for more visual thrills. Leo is also bound to get a bunch of people in the seats, from a variety of demographics. And their is the 3D ticket prices to figure in. I'm going to pinpoint it at $38 million. Meanwhile, I think word of mouth will have a lot to do with how high the film flies, but I can definitely see it grossing over $100 million, settling around $115 million.

I will be seeing Gatsby on Saturday and you can expect my review on Sunday morning.

Peeples (dir. Tina Gordon Chism)

I actually forgot that Peeples was being released this Friday. Now, I had no intention of seeing it anyway, but I do consider that somewhat of a bad omen for its box office prospects. Which is a shame since I really like the leads. But the film isn't bringing anything new to the table, and it can't really count as counter programming since Gatsby is already falling into that category. Still, Peeples can't cost too much so it's bound to make a pretty penny. But, I don't think it'll make much noise during its theatrical run.

Many people are using previous Tyler Perry films as comparables but I see the film performing more along the lines of 2011's Jumping the Broom. Both films were being aimed at the same demographic, both attempted to serve as counter programming, and both revolved around weddings. But, there are bigger films out this year compared to May 2011, so I'm going to bet for an opening weekend a bit lower- $13 million to be exact. As for total gross, I'm going to bet something around $35 million. That may be a bit low, but I don't think it'll get much higher than that. There are just too many big movies out right now, and it's too easy for a film with limited box office potential to get lost in the shuffle.

Finally, I see Iron Man 3 having a drop somewhere between Iron Man 2 and The Avengers. So, I'm predicting it to be number one with around $73 million.

Have a good weekend, everybody! And you can expect my review of The Great Gatsby Sunday morning.

Our Top Story Tonight: Astronauts, Pirates & Owen Wilson Make Headlines

After years of anticipation, the trailer for Alfonso Cauron's Gravity finally arrived online. The film, which follows two astronauts who find themselves stranded in space after their shuttle is destroyed, has been eagerly anticipated by fans of Cuaron since his last film, Children of Men, was released in 2006. I was looking forward to the film, as I am a fan of Cuaron's, but I can't say I was pining for it like some were. Until now. This is one of the best teaser trailers I've seen in recent memory. It's visually stunning, intense, and manages to completely sell the film without giving away major plot details I can't wait to check it out on October 4, and if I could face my nightmarish fear of dying in space, I would see it in IMAX. Check out the trailer above.

The next major piece of news is one I'm not all that excited to report on. It seems like Disney is continuing their Pirates of the Caribbean franchise as a shortlist has emerged for a fifth installment (that no one is asking for). The film will, obviously, see Johnny Depp resume his now iconic role of Captain Jack Sparrow, but no plot has been announced as of yet. As for the directors that Disney is looking at: Fredrick Bond (The Necessary Death of Charlie Countryman), Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg (Kon-Tiki) and Rupert Sanders (Snow White and the Huntsman). I can't speak for the first two directors, but Rupert Sanders directed one of the worst summer blockbusters in recent memory so I don't think he'll bring much to the table if he gets his hands on the franchise. Not that I'll see this movie anyway. I gave up on the Pirates series after the first two terrible sequels. Depp is immensely likable in the film, and the first one is excellent, but I just don't care about this franchise anymore.

Finally, Paul Thomas Anderson has continued adding actors to his impressive cast for his stoner mystery film, Inherent Vice. Owen Wilson is the latest to fall in line for the film, which is set to begin filming next month. Wilson's role has not been disclosed, but he will be joining Joaquin Phoenix (who has the lead role), Benicio Del Toro and PTA regular Kevin J. O'Connor. The film will follow a private eye who is asked by a former girlfriend to track down her current lover. PTA is one of the best directors working today, so I naturally can't wait for this, but I'm curious to see what Owen Wilson does with this role. I'm not a fan of Wilson's mainstream work, but he has proven to be quite talented in more artistic fare (The Royal Tenenbaums, Midnight in Paris) so I think he could turn in a good performance. PTA has quite the eye when it comes to casting, however, so I have no reason to doubt his decision.

One final note- 300: Rise of an Empire has vacated it's August spot and will now be released in March 2014. Meanwhile the Tom Cruise vehicle, All You Need is Kill, has moved to a June release date for next year.

Our Top Story Tonight: "Jurassic Park 4" Extinct & Tom Hanks Battles Pirates

The biggest story of the day, by far, is that Universal has pulled Jurassic Park 4 from their 2014 schedule and have confirmed that the film's production has been shut down for now. While this doesn't mean the project is completely dead, and chances are we'll hear more about it eventually, it is fairly shocking to see a blockbuster project shut down, especially when filming was set to start in a matter of days. Colin Trevarrow (Saftey Not Guaranteed) was set to direct the film and had even tweeted photos from the "Isla Nublar" set, but it seems like the film was just not coming together. I can't say I'm surprised- the film's production felt rushed and the fact that movie was to be released in a little more than a year, despite a single actor being cast, was troubling. It'll be interesting to see if the film gets moving again, or if we'll ever find out what was going on with the production.

Outside of that news there isn't much to discuss today, with the exception of two trailers. The first footage from a potential Oscar film floated online today: Captain Phillips, which is directed by Oscar nominee Paul Greengrass, will find Tom Hanks starring in one of his biggest roles to date. The two time Oscar winner will portray Captain Richard Phillips, who's ship was taken hostage by Somalian pirates. The trailer looks fantastic and I'm quite excited to check the film out on October 11. Check out the trailer below-

On the opposite end of the spectrum, the trailer for Edgar Wright's The World's End found its way online late last night. The film marks another reunion for Simon Pegg, Nick Frost and Wright and many of the comedic director's fans are eagerly anticipating the film's release. I'm a fan of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but don't necessarily count myself a fan of Wright's other works. But this does look entertaining and I will probably make the trip to see it. What about you? Decide for yourself by checking out the trailer below. The film will hit theaters on August 23.

Movie Review: "Broken City"

Despite what its title may suggest, there is nothing 'broken' about this movie. It's just that a better title would have been something along the lines of Recycled City or Dull City. Right from the opening scene it's clear that director Allen Hughes and writer Brian Tucker are trying to evoke the feel of a classic neo-noir with flawed good guys, shady criminals and villains who would do anything to keep the truth from coming out. But the film doesn't so much evoke these tropes as it does repeat them, and while I give all involved credit for trying, the fact that we have seen (better) movies like it many times before really hurts the film.

The film's plot borrows quite a bit from Roman Polanski's brilliant noir, Chinatown, as it opens with a jealous spouse (Russell Crowe), who also happens to be the mayor of New York City, asking a private eye (Mark Wahlberg) to find out who his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is having an affair with. Naturally, not everything is as it seems and characters are quickly double crossed. What is the mayor really after? Is his wife actually cheating on him? What's at stake? These are questions the audience would be asking themselves only if they had never seen a mystery movie before. There is no suspense in the movie, and no surprising revelation- you can see everything coming from a mile away. It also doesn't help that the film is not subtle in the way it draws its characters. The mayor, for example, is supposed to come off as being mysterious and possibly (most definitely) up to no good. But when you have his character constantly dropping racial and homophobic epithets, referring to his wife (and women in general) as "bitches" and talking about hunting in the most villainous way possible, it will not come as much of a surprise when anything nefarious is revealed about his intentions.

The film also fails to truly mimic one of the major characteristics of a noir film: the flawed hero. Mark Wahlberg's character, we learn, is a former cop who was fired and nearly jailed for shooting a black teenager. Naturally, tensions ran high for a while and his innocent verdict proved controversial. But the film tries to depict Wahlberg as being "tortured" by his actions. He struggles with alcoholism, for example, and has a temper problem when it comes to his wife. But it never quite rings true. Every time his flaws appear on screen, it feels too staged and melodramatic. For example, a sequence when he gets into a fight with his actress girlfriend regarding a steamy sex scene she was filming for her movie comes out of nowhere, fails to further the plot and just feels ridiculous.

I do have to applaud the A-list actors that, for whatever reason, appear in this film. Even with lackluster material, everyone involved really gives the film their all. Mark Wahlberg is not the most diverse actor, but when in the right role he can really shine. Needless to say, a tough cop turned private eye is a role he was meant to play. Russell Crowe and Catherine Zeta-Jones also have a lot of fun chewing on scenery and going deliciously over-the-top in all their scenes. Other actors wouldn't have made it work, but they both seem to know when they should dial it back and how they can still manage to ham it up without getting too ridiculous about it. Stealing scenes was relative newcomer Alona Tal, who plays Wahlberg's assistant. Her character is a walking cliché, but Tal sells the occasionally ridiculous dialogue and contrived situations with sincerity and believability.

In the end, Broken City is, essentially, a bad film. But it's a bad film I won't remember in a month or two. In fact, it's only been about 12 hours since I actually watched it and I've already forgotten some plot details. At this rate, it'd be as if I hadn't seen the film by the Fourth of July. And I'd much rather see a forgettable bad movie than one that would burn itself into my memory and haunt me forever. So, if Broken City interests you I encourage you to skip it and rent the many classic films that clearly influenced it. Chances are you'll remember them more than you'd remember this.

OVERALL GRADE: C

"Broken City" is currently available on DVD and Blu-Ray. 

Our Top Story Tonight: Scorsese Finds a New Lead, Affleck Finds His Next Film & 2 Big Trailers Debut

We'll start off tonight's movie news summary with a just released trailer for one of this year's big Oscar films. The Butler, which is directed by Lee Daniels (Precious), boasts a huge cast and seems tailor made for some serious awards this fall. The film tells the true story of Eugene Allen, a butler who served eight president's between 1952 and 1986. Forrest Whitaker is playing Allen, which is bound to get him some attention this awards season, but the most interesting member of this cast is Oprah Winfrey, in her first major theatrical role since 1998's Beloved. Based on the footage, it looks like she's giving a performance the Weinsteins will really be emphasizing to voters, and she could really be a contender in the Supporting Actress category. As for the film itself, it looks decent and is worth seeing for the cast alone, but I am not a fan of Daniels and his strange directorial style. His films tend to feel cheap and seedy to me, which clashes with the material at the center of movies like Precious. But, he did direct three fantastic performances in that film, so maybe The Butler will deliver. Check out the trailer above and decide for yourself. The film will arrive in theaters on October 18.

Up next we have a major announcement involving Martin Scorsese's long awaited Silence, a film that has been in production for almost twenty years and has had numerous actors attached to it at some point. This time, Andrew Garfield is set to play the leading role of Father Rodrigues, a Jesuit priest who travels to Japan amidst rumors that his mentor has abandoned his faith. Also along for the ride is Ken Watanabe, who will play the priest's translator. The film has had a tough time getting distribution due to its violence, tough subject matter and the fact that it is largely in Japanese. But, it seems like the project is finally happening and will begin filming next summer, right after Scorsese is finished running the awards circuit for his next film, The Wolf of Wall Street. The film sounds fascinating, and I'm happy to see Andrew Garfield taking on more serious subject matter outside of the Spider-Man franchise.

Also in the news: Ben Affleck has found his next project. Not surprisingly, the film is set in Boston. It is an adaptation of Dennis Lehane's Live By Night, a Prohibition set gangster story about a man who becomes a career criminal despite his father being a cop. The film was long rumored to be Affleck's next project, and it can already be deemed a frontrunner for Best Picture during its year of release. Like it or not, Affleck is a hot commodity, especially with Argo winning Best Picture and becoming a box office hit. On the plus side, Affleck's status as a major director means he'll likely court some big names to this project- anyone care to speculate on who will star? And while I wasn't a major fan of Argo or The Town, I do think Affleck has shown talent as a director and this project sounds interesting.

And coming full circle tonight there is the trailer for Ender's Game, a highly anticipated sci-fi adaptation about a futuristic military that is training children to fight against some sort of alien speices. The children in question include Asa Butterfield (Hugo), Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit) and Oscar nominee Abigail Breslin, while the adults in the film include Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley and Viola Davis. Truth be told, I have no interest in this series and the trailer did not impress me in the slightest. The CGI looks cheap and it all seems quite cheesy. But maybe those who are fans of the franchise will be impressed. The film, which is directed by Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) will be released November 1. You can see the trailer below.
Finally, I feel like I can't end the night without giving a respectful Rest in Peace to Ray Harryhausen, who passed away at the age of 93. He will be missed, and his impact on special effects and the film community will not be forgotten.

Our Top Story Tonight: PTA, "Jane" and "The Crow" Reboot Find New Stars

Today was a slow news day, but we did get some interesting news tidbits as the film community prepares for the Cannes Film Festival in two weeks and Hollywood dives into the summer movie season. Let's take a look...

The most interesting story, in my opinion, is that Benicio Del Toro has joined the cast of Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice, an adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's novel about a pot smoking detective in the 1970s. Joaquin Phoenix is set for the lead role, while other casting announcements are expected shortly as we get closer to the start date for filming next month. Older rumors stated that Charlize Theron was set for a major role, but that might not be true given that the actress has Dark Places and A Million Ways to Die in the West set for the next few months. Meanwhile, online speculation has lead to some believing that Robert Pattison and Vince Vaughn will be joining the cast (a rumor started by photos of the two with Phoenix at a party) but we won't know anything for sure until the studio makes an announcement. As for Del Toro, he will be playing a district attorney.

Meanwhile, Ewan McGregor is the latest actor to join the tumultuous production of Jane's Got a Gun, the Natalie Portman vehicle that was to be directed by Lynne Ramsay before she quit unexpectedly and was replaced by Gavin O' Connor. McGregor will play the film's villain, a role originally to be played by Michael Fassbender and, later, Bradley Cooper, before both actors dropped out. The film will follow a woman (Portman) who calls on a former lover (Joel Edgerton) to defend her farm after a gangster (McGregor) attacks her husband (Noah Emmerich of "The Americans"). It will certainly be interesting to see if McGregor will actually stick to the part.

In other news, Luke Evans has been cast in the titular role of The Crow, a reboot of the 1994 cult classic starring the late Brandon Lee. The film will find Evans playing a man who rises from the dead (with supernatural powers) and plans on avenging the brutal murder of he and his girlfriend. I saw the original quite a while ago, and will probably watch it again sometime soon, but I don't think a reboot is all that necessary. But, I doubt that matters. Evans takes the part that many actors- James McAvoy, Tom Hiddlestone and Alexander Skarsgard, to name three- were rumored for, while F. Javier Gutierrez directs. It will begin production in early 2014.

Next up, Keira Knightley has replaced Anne Hathaway for the lead role in Laggies, the Lynn Shelton dramadey that co-stars Chloe Moretz. Hathaway was forced to drop out of the project due to her commitment to Christopher Nolan's Interstellar. This film will find Knightley playing a woman who panics after her boyfriend proposes to her and spends time with a 16 year old she befriends (to be played by Moretz). The project sounds interesting, but I can understand why Hathaway would choose a role in Nolan's film over this. As for Knightley, she is hardly a bad choice. In fact, I'm quite a fan of Knightley's work.

Finally, Tom Cruise has signed on for a fifth Mission: Impossible 5. This is somewhat of a surprise, seeing that the fourth film of the franchise was used to set Paula Patton and Jeremy Renner as possible leads for future sequels. But, Ghost Protocol was a major success and Cruise's followup, Oblivion, was not. So, maybe this isn't much of a surprise. The director for this film hasn't been announced yet, but rumor has it we'll learn the name of who'll be at the helm of the fifth installment very soon. One of my favorite things about this franchise is that a new director takes on the series with each new installment. Each film feels distinct, and it prevents the audience from feeling like they're seeing the same thing over and over again. And I actually believe that this franchise has gotten better with each new installment. So I'm excited for it.

That's all for today! Check back tomorrow for more news, and later in the week for some box office talk, a review of The Great Gatsby and more!

Movie Review: "Iron Man 3"

Back in 2008, when Robert Downey Jr. first donned the red and gold armor, Iron Man was considered a "B-list" hero. But much has changed in the past five years, with Iron Man becoming one of the most financially successful superheroes at the movies, only to be absorbed into the third biggest blockbuster of all time, The Avengers. It's safe to say that Iron Man has flew from the B-list roster and stands high on the A-list now, but Robert Downey Jr. and Marvel are making the (wise) decision to go out when they're on top by (allegedly) ending the franchise with Iron Man 3- a film that is, essentially, everything you want from a summer movie spectacle. It might not be intellectually stimulating fare, but audiences that enjoy incredible special effects, badass action scenes and Robert Downey Jr.'s irresistible charm, will go home happy.

What makes Iron Man so entertaining is the character of Tony Stark- not the suit of armor he dons whenever he must face evil. What makes Tony different from every other superhero at the movies right now, especially in this age of dark and gritty reboots, is that he is constantly cracking jokes and making light of the situation- a sort of lovable smugness that Downey has captured perfectly over the last four years. But what's also fascinating about his character is his past. The fact that Stark used to be a greedy, womanizing jerk and that he is constantly trying to atone for his actions add as much dimension as a comic book adaptation could allow, and makes the audiences care for him. It's a story of redemption- who doesn't love that? In Iron Man 3, Tony is once again forced to redeem himself and audiences are immediately pulled into the story of how his less than noble actions on New Years Eve in 1999 started a domino effect leading up to the main conflict at the center of this story. And while The Avengers is woven into the story via occasional allusions and a subplot involving Tony's PTSD after almost being killed, the film doesn't feel like a sequel to the superhero mash-up. Iron Man 3 feels like both a stand alone film and an epic finale to a popular franchise.

But the film does fall prey to a major problem that threequels face- an attempt to cover too much ground in about 150 minutes. It feels as if writer/director Shane Black had a checklist of plot points he wanted to incorporate into the film. He clearly included them all, but didn't allow any of the audience a chance to reflect on what is truly going on. It's a double edged sword- on one hand, the audience will never be bored. Their are dozens of action scenes and the few minutes between them are just as entertaining thanks to funny dialogue and interesting plot developments. But, on the other, the film feels far too rushed. Everything moves at a breakneck speed, and the audience is essentially forced to form understandings about the characters based on the archetypes they've come to learn by seeing dozens of summer movies. The Mandarin (Ben Kngsely) is evil, but not necessarily because audiences are aware of the stakes at hand. We, as an audience, are just forced to accept that he is evil and is capable of doing terrible things. Meanwhile, the Mandarin's plan is never actually fleshed out more than it has to be, and whenever a new development is made Iron Man & co. quickly resolve the issue. Then, the Mandarin just reveals another facet to his evil plan and it all starts again.

That's not to suggest the script is bad, however. Granted, the film could benefit from slowing down a bit, but Shane Black has some serious talent as a screenwriter. The dialogue is fantastic, even if his true forte is in comedy and the many dramatic scenes resort to stock phrases and the occasional cliché. Black also knows how to throw some surprises into the mix, which is rare for a major blockbuster in general, let alone the third installment of a comic book franchise. There is a genuinely surprising plot twist, and a few welcome deviations from the traditional action flick formula. While Pepper (Gwyneth Paltrow) is certainly in danger quite a bit, she is far from a damsel in distress, while a new kid (Ty Simpkins) that helps out Tony as he faces off against evil is a welcome and surprisingly likable addition to the character roster.

The best thing about Black's script, however, is that the man behind the mask is just as entertaining as the mask itself thanks to strong writing. For much of the film, we are watching Tony Stark- not Iron Man- battle evil. Yet, even without the incredibly cool suit audiences have come to love, Iron Man 3 has the best action sequences out of the entire trilogy. At its best moments, Black makes the film feel like a spy movie, with Tony facing off against bad guys and investigating the mystery at the film's center. In fact, the Iron Man suits are only really used in the film's final third. But it doesn't matter in the long run- Black is aware of how much audiences love Tony Stark and use their affection for the character to make his suit-less scenes just as much fun as the explosive finale.

But, rest assured, the Iron Man suit plays a major role in the movie. But, strangely enough, it feels like Black is the first person to write an Iron Man movie who was aware of just how cool Tony's suits are. Without spoiling plot details, let's just say there are numerous types of armor depicted in the film, each of which possesses its own unique qualities. The action scenes near the end of this film are the definition of summer movie spectacle, with moments that will have the audience on the edge of their seats, hurriedly munching on their popcorn and slurping down their soda as they feast their eyes on the dazzling special effects. An attack on an airplane, and the midair rescue, is worth the price of admission alone, while the film's finale- which manages to incorporate dozens of Iron Man suits while still giving Tony a considerable amount of face time- is bound to leave audience's with a smile on their face.

One quick thing worth noting- this is not a film to see in 3D. The 3D effects on display are distracting and darken the movie to a point where it's almost impossible to understand what is going on. I saw the film twice- once in 3D, once in 2D- and the 2D viewing was considerably better.

Iron Man 3 is summertime fluff, but it's summertime fluff of the highest order. Fans of the franchise will absolutely adore this fitting "farewell" to their favorite superhero, while audiences as a whole are bound to enjoy the film's awe inspiring action scenes. Iron Man 3 is the textbook definition of a summer blockbuster, and while it might not be the best film you'll see all year, it's hard to imagine anyone leaving the movie unsatisfied.

OVERALL GRADE: B
___________________

Follow me on Twitter
Follow me on Tumblr
Follow me on Letterboxd

Our Top Story Tonight: Lots of Casting News Tonight

There is a lot to talk about tonight, so let's just dive right in...

Interstellar is quickly shaping up to be one of my most anticipated films of next year. Granted, we don't know anything about its plot, but Christopher Nolan is in the midst of assembling a stellar cast and tonight's announcement is quite exciting. Jessica Chastain, who has quickly catapaulted herself to A-list status thanks to stunning turns in The Help and Zero Dark Thirty, is set for the third lead role. She's joining the already cast Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, both of whom are already cast. Deadline broke all three casting stories. Seeing that the film won't be released until November 2014, there is no point in getting excited just yet, but the cast thus far is remarkable. It's also pretty nice to see Nolan working on a project that doesn't involve Batman, as his best films (Inception and Memento) were original works. Hopefully Interstellar will uphold that tradition.

Bradley Cooper quickly found a foolproof way to avoid being typecast as "the douchebag from The Hangover"- he got an Oscar nomination for last year's fantastic Silver Linings Playbook. And now he seems to be interested in keeping his status as an Oscar contender, as the actor continues to sign up for interesting projects. He's already set to star in this December's American Hustle, which reunites him with director David O. Russell and two of his Silver Linings co-stars. He'll also play the male lead in Cameron Crowe's next romance, opposite Emma Stone. But today news broke that Cooper is set for not one but two major Oscar films set to be released over the next few years- and that one of those roles will hook him up with none other than Steven Spielberg. That film, titled American Sniper, will find Cooper playing Navy SEAL sniper Chris Kyle, who holds the record for most kills with 150. That will film in early 2014, after which he will star in Chef. That film follows Paris chef Adam Jones, who overcomes addiction and attempts to obtain three Michelin stars. It will be directed by John Wells (this November's August: Osage County). I'm much more interested in Chef than American Sniper, but it certainly seems like we'll be seeing a lot of Cooper over the next few years, and that certainly isn't a bad thing.

Then, on the comic book side of things, it seems that Michael B. Jordan is in negotiations to play the Human Torch in the upcoming Fantastic Four film, which will reunite him with Chronicle director Josh Tank. Now, my knowledge of the comic books is fairly limited, but I'm going to guess that the Human Torch and the Invisible Woman will not be siblings in this version of the famous series, seeing that Allison Williams was recently rumored to be in contention for the part of Susan Storm. But, I like both these young actors so I'm fine with the change in mythology. Though I'm sure many fanboys will find reason to complain. Also of note is that Chadwick Boseman (42) is being considered for the role of the Black Panther, who may be introduced at some point into the Avengers franchise. But all signs point that these are very early talks and nothing is definite.

Ending the night, I have attached the trailer to White House Down- a film that didn't impress me with its first trailer, but now looks like a ton of fun thanks to some solid jokes and Channing Tatum's infectious charm. Check it out below:

Betting on the Box Office: Iron Man 3 Set to Kick Off the Summer

I've been trying to find some way to incorporate box office predictions and results into the blog other than merely reporting the facts. Let's face it- that's kind of boring, and there are already great sites like Box Office Mojo for that. So, I'm going to introduce Betting on the Box Office- my weekly column (to be posted on Thursdays) that will offer in depth analysis and give a prediction for how the new releases will do on its opening weekend and throughout its entire run. So, let's get started...this should be an easy week, since there is only one release:

Iron Man 3 (dir. Shane Black)

Let's face it: Iron Man 3 will be huge. Hell, it already is huge. The film has already grossed $300 million at the worldwide box office... that's insane. So, needless to say, the film will have a huge opening weekend and could end up the highest grossing film of the year. But, just how bit will it be?

I don't see Iron Man 3 reaching an opening as big as The Avengers did last summer. $200 million is just too high. But, Iron Man 2 only grossed $128 million during its opening weekend... that's way too low. Iron Man 3 has to break $150 million- it has the buzz, the built in audience and a large fan base. How about $160 million? The Dark Knight Rises, which was one of the most anticipated films of last summer, grossed a huge $160 million. Does Iron Man 3 have the same amount of anticipation? Maybe not... but it does have 3D to figure in. So, I think it's flying well about $160. In fact, I'm going to bet that Iron Man 3 will have the second highest opening weekend of all time with a gross... $180 million.

But how much will Iron Man 3 gross in the long run? Again, I can't see it matching The Avengers' final tally. It's an event movie for sure. But I just don't think that it's that big of an event. For this, I feel the best comparison is The Dark Knight Rises. Iron Man 3 feels like a finale (even though, let's face it, it probably isn't) and the franchise has a lot of loyal followers that will be checking the film out throughout the summer. Granted, Iron Man 3 will face much more competition than The Dark Knight Rises did, what with Star Trek and Fast and Furious films on the way, but I still think a final tally around $450 million feels like a safe prediction.

Just how big will Iron Man 3 really be? We'll find out tomorrow, and I'll be back Sunday with a quick recap to see how I did with my predictions.

Why We Need Summer Movies

It was May 2002. I was in the second grade, and I loved Spider-Man. So it didn't come as a surprise when my parents asked if I wanted to go see Spider-Man in theaters. Every time the commercial came on TV, I got quiet and my eyes stayed glued to the screen. I had a love for that particular superhero for years, thanks in part to the many classic comics left over from my dad's childhood that he gave to me. Not to mention my favorite action figure- a Spider-Man toy that I brought with me everywhere. So, naturally, I wanted to see Spider-Man more than I had ever wanted anything in my short eight years of life. Yet, I turned down my parents offer to see the movie in theaters. Why? Because I was an abnormally paranoid eight year old and while my parents had brought me to see virtually every animated film released between 1998 and 2002, the idea of seeing a live action film on the big screen filled me with apprehension. It wasn't until November 1, 2002 that I saw the film that would awaken the film nerd inside of me.

What I find funny is that I remember the day I saw Spider-Man in vivid detail. I remember that my mom and I had planned, long in advance, that she would take me to Hollywood Video immediately after school ended. I remember running into the video store, tracking down the VHS and running to the front with my copy. I remember putting the movie on right away and sitting on the couch with my brother, smiling with anticipation for what was about to begin. And I remember deciding the very second it ended that I was going to watch it again tomorrow. And I did.

I loved movies from when I was a little kid. But, whether I realized it or not at the time, watching Spider-Man awoke something in me. Because after that, I couldn't stop watching movies. Sure, being nine years old my watching habits consisted, primarily, of silly action films and bad comedies. And, naturally, every movie I saw was the "best movie I have ever seen... other than Spider-Man." But suddenly watching movies was part of my daily routine. And as the years went on, my movie habits began to mature.

When I entered middle school my parents had moved to a new town with a much nicer library. I was a bit of a bookworm, so my parents took me to check it out almost immediately after moving in but all I noticed was the gigantic selection of films in the back room- all of which were available for free. Around the same time, I had discovered the Internet Movie Database and while I still wasn't reaching too far out of my comfort zone I at least started to watch older films, selecting mainstream hits from the 90s, 80s and sometimes even the 70s. And, instead of reviewing each film with "That was the best movie ever!" I became a bit more discerning (but I still tended to be overly passionate about films that really weren't all that great). Every weekend, I'd march into the library and rent an obscene amount of DVDs. And I'd watch most, if not all of them (clearly I wasn't a very social child). By the time eighth grade was wrapping up, I was becoming a bit of a critic. I was reading professional reviews regularly, stepping outside my comfort zone a bit by seeing a few (popular) independent films, and actually had somewhat intelligent things to say about a film- "it had a great script" or "I think it was pretty well directed" replaced "That was the best movie ever."

And then I had another major moment in my life as a film lover. It was the moment that awakened me to the difference between a "great, entertaining movie" and a "great movie." I saw Paul Thomas Anderson's 1997 epic Boogie Nights, a film that I was probably far too young for at the age of 14, but I watched it anyway. And it blew me away. From the opening scene, a long tracking shot that introduces every major character, I was in awe. "So this is what a great movie is" was my first thought after it came to an end. Boogie Nights was unlike anything I had seen before, and it filled me with that same sense of glee that Spider-Man supplied. Only for a different reason- I was suddenly pulled out of the realm of being a fan of movies and suddenly felt like a certifiable film geek. As soon as Boogie Nights ended, I started searching for every critically acclaimed film in existence to watch and to cherish. Granted, that's an of an unrealistic goal- it's been almost five years since I started watching movies seriously and I still have a long list of beloved movies I have yet to check out. But suddenly watching films was more than just a hobby. It was, and still is, a passion.

So, what does that all mean?

Earlier this week, Steven Soderbergh gave a speech at the San Francisco International Film Festival about how the big studios are destroying cinema by spending large sums of money on expensive but artistically bankrupt films, while smaller independent films are barely even given a release. This sentiment- which is nothing new, keep in mind- saddens me. Yes, I'd prefer to see a great film with brilliant direction and an intelligent screenplay over a brainless film with some fun action. But it does not bother me in the slightest that some people, maybe even a majority of people, wouldn't. Because if it did bother me, I'd be a hypocrite.

Over the summer, I try to go to the movies as much as possible. I love to see the independent art house films that are released. In fact, I am planning numerous trips this summer to see films like The Bling Ring or Blue Jasmine in theaters- movies that won't be playing near me, but will probably be amongst the year's best. But I also love going to see popcorn movies. Yes, some of them are truly terrible and a majority of them  will be forgotten in the weeks to come. But, first of all, I have wonderful memories of seeing these films with my friends and family. And, more importantly, there are some shining examples of films transcending their genre and becoming truly great movies. And the fact that alleged film lovers will write off an entire brand of movies really bothers me. Especially since so many people employ an elitist point of view- those who enjoy fluff are, apparently, less worthy of being called a "film lover."

Regardless of who is behind the camera, the amount of theaters it is shown in and the amount of money spent on it, a film is a film. Iron Man 3 and Star Trek Into Darkness are just as worthy of being reviewed as films like Only God Forgives or Frances Ha. They should be held to the same standard, and neither should be written off before actually being viewed. To do so is disrespectful to the people who worked on the film, and to the medium itself. I judge each film based on its own merits. I love The Avengers because I thought it had terrific dialogue and because its action scenes were staged fantastically- not because Marvel spent a fortune on it. I didn't like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen because its script was horrific and the film came off as juvenile and borderline offensive- not because Dreamworks spent a fortune on it. Hell, I enjoyed the first  Transformers quite a bit! It was fun and for two and a half hours I was entertained. I never felt the need to revisit it and probably never will, but what is so bad about enjoying yourself for 150 minutes? I don't think I robbed any talented filmmakers by doing so. Not to mention the fact that I have seen some truly terrible small-budgeted films from directors who may not be working with a studio. But I've also seen great ones. The amount of money a studio is willing to spend on a film does not serve as an indicator to its quality.

But I also think blockbusters play an important role in the film community. How many film lovers had their passion for cinema begin by watching some sort of challenging art house film? Maybe I'm just being naive, but I don't think there are many. As I mentioned above, my passion for film started when I saw Spider-Man, a big budget action film that is heavily flawed but in the eyes of my eight year old self it was absolute perfection and showed me just how great watching movies can be. There is a movie like Spider-Man for every film lover that is writing about, talking about, and celebrating movies. And these movies, which the film community is so quick to write off, will be like Spider-Man for the next generation of film geeks. Yes, these films may be flawed. Yes, some of them may be terrible. But if watching that terrible movie sends someone on the path to finding great movies, than it has validated its existence.

The big studios in Hollywood churn out that are crap. But this is not a new issue. Hell, they talk about it in the 1950 classic Sunset Blvd. There will always be bad movies. But, there will always be good ones to. And the existence of bad movies, whether they are made for north of $200 million or on a shoe-string budget, will not lessen their quality. So why get so angry about people enjoying bad films? Do they prevent you from enjoying good ones? 

I loved Spider-Man. A part of me still loves it. Granted, it's not in my top five of all time. It's not in my top ten either. It's not even in my top 50. But because I saw it back when I was eight years old, I managed to seek out movies that allowed me to make a top 50 favorite films of all time list that is filled with titles that are respected by critics and cinephiles. So let's all stop getting so hung up on the fact that bad movies can make a lot of money, and let's just enjoy the wide variety of films that are made in this wonderful medium of entertainment.

Soderbergh's speech transcript courtesy of Rope of Silicon.