Sequels Sequels SEQUELS

Every time I pass the Oxford Odeon I stop by to look at the cinema listings, even though I usually know what they are already. Let's take a look at what is showing at the moment:

• Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2
• Honey 2
• Kung Fu Panda 2
• Pirates of the Caribbean 4
• The Hangover: Part II
• Thor 3D
• Water for Elephants
• X-Men: First Class

That's two films that I've seen (Thor and Water for Elephants) and two films that are not sequels. I'm being generous here as well, since Thor is technically part of the Avengers series.

So far the highest-grossing films of 2011 are Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and Fast Five (The Hangover: Part II in the UK). Third on the rankings is Rio, which is refreshing - animated films have had their fair share of sequels however, with the creatively named Hoodwinked Too! Hood vs. Evil and Kung Fu Panda 2, with Cars 2, Puss in Boots, and Happy Feet Two still to come.

Looking back to 2010, five out of ten of the highest-grossing films were sequels (Toy Story 3, Shrek Forever After, Iron Man 2) or parts of series (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1, Eclipse). But in the year 2000, the highest-grossing film, Mission: Impossible II, was the only sequel on the top ten list.

It's pretty obvious that sequels are huge moneymakers. But why? Are people so lazy that they can't bother to look into original films? Were the originals so amazing that audiences can't wait to come back for more? 

Sequels have developed a reputation for being cheap remakes of the beloved originals. Back to the Future. Grease. All of the various Disney animated films you never even knew had sequels (Mulan. Cinderella. Lady and the Tramp). Then we have the great sequels. The Godfather Part II. The Dark Knight. Shrek 2. Last year's Toy Story 3. Is it unmissable successes like this that cause moviegoers to return to the cinema year after year to see continuations of the films they have already seen?

The cinemas are currently preventing me from buying tickets because I haven't seen the precursors to the films playing. Yes, I'm probably in the minority here, one of the few people on the planet who has yet to see the third Pirates film or even hit comedy The Hangover. I guess now is a good time to rent some oldies. Or maybe I'll just go see some artsy foreign films at the independent picture house instead.

New Posters for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2

Just in case the release of this film isn't hard enough for Harry Potter fanatics already, Warner Brothers decided to rub it in by replacing the film's title with a catchy little reminder.

 

 

 Other than being nostalgically painful, the posters are pretty damn classy.

Branagh's Thor is Just Okay

I went into Thor knowing nothing about the phenomenon outside the trailer that kept cropping up before every film I've seen lately. Thor appealed to me mostly because of my loyalty to Natalie Portman, my curiosity for this uncharacteristic directing project of Kenneth Branagh's, and my growing appreciation for the superhero film genre. I found the film to be unexpectedly funny, but ultimately slow, choppy, and uninteresting.

The film opens with the New Mexican science camp-out that from the trailer, focusing on determined physics genius Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), her intern Darcy (Kat Dennings), and her mentor Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard). Thor appears, having been banished from the realm of Asgard, and when Jane dramatically asks "Who are you?" the scene dramatically cuts to the title credits, followed by a long and boring flashback telling the backstory of Thor's realm. It is these shifts between Earth and Asgard that lack connectivity, and while the Asgard scenes are necessary to advance the plot, they are too fantasy-visual-effects-heavy to find relatable and too long and drawn-out to find interesting.

These ridiculous scenes contrast greatly to the fast-paced and witty Earth ones. Thor's clumsy adjustment to the unfamiliar world is effortlessly comical. The title role calls for a delicate balance between arrogant angsty battle dude and likable fish-out-of-water hero, and Chris Hemsworth pulls this off with a quirky sort of charm. Kat Dennings also deserves credit for much of the humor; whiny and dry, the character Darcy is a perfect match against Portman's serious scientist Jane. Portman herself provide some subtle comedy, and these vulnerably human moments strengthen her character. However, while she and Hemsworth have good on-screen chemistry, the romance between Thor and Jane is unconvincing, relying too heavily on viewer expectations for the superhero to fall for The Girl.

While the characters are likable and the actors are superbly cast, Thor lacks the cohesion necessary to make their actions urgent and important. It's enjoyable to watch, but difficult to develop any emotional attachment to the characters and their stories, largely because the plot is so predictable. This film is a mellow opener for the Summer of Superheros, leaving plenty of room for improvement.

Everyone Wants To Be The Social Network

Simplistic yet edgy, the poster for The Social Network is iconic. 

And when one movie's poster gets it right, everyone else seems to well, do the same thing.

At least it's better than this.

They went all out with the unpunctuated sentence thing

Come on, Thor, at least get the font right!

And then there's Rio, using Jesse Eisenburg's character's face.

These days you can even make your own Social Network poster. 

And speaking of Social Network humor, I've been quite the fan of The Kitchn's Oscar 2011 party food suggestions, but Urlesque takes the Mark Zuckerburger to a whole new level.

REVIEW: Stupid and Sometimes Uncomfortable, Your Highness Still Entertains

Your Highness seems to be one of those polarizing movies that critics despise and audiences enjoy. Okay, enjoy might be too strong of a word - it received a 57% on Rotten Tomatoes for audience choice and a paltry 25% for critics choice. But doesn't this unusually high gap between audience and critic enjoyment suggest that for those who the movie was really intended for, it was actually a success? The target audience, which Bill O'Reily fondly coined the term Stoner-Slackers, was probably too lazy to make a strong showing at a movie primarily made for them. Medieval enthusiasts and men with a very immature sense of humor also probably enjoyed this film. For everyone else though, it's no surprise that it wasn't a hit.

James Franco stars as Fabious, a pretty-boy knight who must quest with his incompetent, jealous brother Thadeus (Danny McBride) to save his bride-to-be Belladonna (Zooey Deschanel). Natalie Portman comes in to support the cast as Isabel, the warrior-hottie love interest of Thadeus. The plot, while nothing spectacular, is certainly coherent and straightforward enough to deserve less criticism than it has been getting.

What is especially being picked apart in recent reviews, however, seems to be the humor. Your Highness marketed itself as a stupid but entertaining movie (how can a tagline like "Best. Quest. Ever" suggest otherwise?), and that was exactly what it was. Yes, there were maybe too many uncomfortably sexual jokes, especially the ones about molestation (although honestly, it's hard to take seriously when the perpetrator is a purple, weed-smoking jellyfish). And for those of you a bit more sensitive, the image of a minotaur's penis dangling from Danny McBride's neck may take a while to revert back into the subconscious. But I digress, being a part of the movie's target audience, I found it hilarious. Yes, the jokes were incredibly immature and there was no substantial theme to back the story up - this is probably why Your Highness failed where Pineapple Express (also directed by David Gordon Green) succeeded - but it was still an entertaining movie that succeeded in exactly what it set out to be.

Why did such a lowly but entertaining film like The Fast and Furious gain a 52% approval rating from critics on Rotten Tomatoes, while Your Highness gained just half of that? My theory is that people were expecting too much from recently lauded actors James Franco and Natalie Portman, and that given the surprisingly deep and emotional tone of the other Green-directed stoner movie Pineapple Express, Your Highness would be just as profound. Maybe Danny McBride (who wrote Your Highness with Ben Best) just isn't as insightful into emotional connections as Judd Apatow, Evan Goldberg, and Seth Rogen, who collectively wrote Pineapple Express. But that shouldn't stop you from enjoying Your Highness, in all its uncomfortable glory. Sometimes films come along that don't really have a great story but still succeed as comedic experiences (I would cite a personal favorite of mine, Dazed and Confused, as a prime example). And while many of the jokes in Your Highness are uncomfortable and downright weird, it still keeps you laughing the whole way. McBride, Franco, and Justin Theroux (who plays the sexually-awkward villain Leezar) give strong comedic performances with the lines they're given, and despite all the bad press, I still recommend Your Highness for anyone who is looking to simply relax and laugh at good, old-fashioned disgusting humor.

Hunger Games Trio Officially Cast: Lawrence, Hutcherson, Hemsworth

Suzanne Collins' Hunger Games trilogy is set to hit theatres next spring. The wildly popular young adult book series about a deadly reality TV competition in a post-apocalyptic world has fans predicting who will be cast and picking favorites. Lionsgate has now confirmed three of the film's stars: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Liam Hemsworth.

Jennifer Lawrence stars as Katniss Everdeen, "Girl on Fire." Lawrence was relatively unknown until her role in Winter's Bone last year, which earned her an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (she was the second youngest actress to be nominated, ever).  Lawrence's role as Ree Dolly in Winter's Bone is not unlike the role of Katniss: both leading ladies are stubbornly loyal and take on the responsibility of their families. Additionally, Katniss becomes the rallying point for the revolution that could save her country (a post-apocalyptic North America). Director Gary Ross said that in Lawrence's audition "You glimpsed every aspect of the role and the potential of the whole movie." Author Suzanne Collins assured fans that she "watched Jennifer embody every essential quality necessary to play Katniss."

Josh Hutcherson first appeared on television at age ten. Last year he starred in The Kids Are All Right, and other notable credits include Bridge to Terebithia, Journey to the Center of the Earth, and the adorable romance Little Manhattan (he also voiced "Hero Boy" in The Polar Express. Cool.). Hutcherson will play Peeta, the eloquent artistic romantic with an unsuspecting tough side. Hutcherson, a huge fan of the book series, has been lobbying for the role for a while, and his passion for the character seems to have paid off. Collins said: "Josh totally captured Peeta's temperament, his sense of humor and his facility for language. I'm thrilled to have him aboard." Some fans are upset that Hutcherson has brown hair and brown eyes rather than Peeta's described blond hair blue eyes combo, but hopefully they'll calm down when they see him act the part as suitably as I have complete confidence he will.

Lawrence was cast before I began to read the books, and as soon as I heard that Hutcherson wanted to play Peeta I supported him 100%. However, I had never heard of Liam Hemsworth until he was mentioned on a list of possible Gales. Since his character is the most important one in the film (well...according to me. To be fair he probably won't be in this one as much as the other two, and certainly not as much as Katniss or Peeta.), hopefully he will take this immense responsibility seriously. Gale is Katniss's intelligent and fiercely brave hunting partner-in-crime. He does not compete in the Hunger Games, but plays a key role in the revolution. Producer Nina Jacobsen said: "Gale's journey across the three books transforms him, and Liam's performance left no doubt that he would take us there." (So that's good.). Hemsworth is most known for his role opposite Miley Cyrus in The Lost Song, which, to be fair, I haven't seen. Maybe it was awesome. That doesn't matter, as long as he is awesome.

REVIEW: Neeson Triumphs in the Satisfying Action-Mystery Thriller Unknown

  If you decide to see Unknown based on the intriguing story introduced in its trailer, you won’t be disappointed by its conclusion or by the starring actors’ performances. Some plot details fall through the cracks, but overall it proves to be an exciting film with some great car chases and a satisfying ending.

Liam Neeson stars as Dr. Martin Harris, a scientist who gets in a car crash as soon as he arrives in Germany for a bio-technology conference with his wife (played by January Jones). When he awakens from a coma four days later and reunites with her, she not only claims to not know who he is, but introduces another man who claims to be Martin Harris, who shares the protagonist’s memories and backstory.

The film poses questions about identity and insanity, as made clear from Martin Harris’s line in the trailer: “Do you know what it feels like to become insane? It's a war between being told who you are and knowing who you are...Which do you think wins?” The story resolves itself satisfactorily, remaining suspenseful through the end.

There are, however, some plot holes that viewers simply have to accept and move on, such as the mystery of how a man in a coma for falling off a bridge into a lake managed to bribe so many people afterward with the cash from his pocket that appears to be untouched by water, or how, for that matter, he sprung back to full physical health so quickly. Other devices are a bit obviously placed, such as the ever-conveniently played news story telling him exactly where he needs to go next.

While the cinematography is generally effective, the transitions from scene to scene are sometimes abrupt and even confusing. A couple of scenes are a bit too melodramatic and cause characters to rant for too long - while Neeson’s “Who am I? Who am I” vocal crisis is realistic to how the character would genuinely react, when portrayed on screen it just looks silly.

Neeson’s acting overall though is convincing; his Martin Harris is likable and evokes sympathy. Diane Krugar, who plays the taxi driver who was in the accident with him, is the epitome of feisty loyal Bosnian sidekick chick (hearing her strong accent after getting used to her as American in a similar role in National Treasure took some adjustment, although probably due less to her acting and more to the number of times I’ve seen National Treasure - a good Nicolas Cage film. And no, I’m not including the sequel.). These two along January Jones as the mysterious and beautiful Elizabeth Harris make the film worthwhile. Watch with a grain of salt, and watch for the main story and main actors.