Tonight my wife and I settled in for the highly anticipated Captain America: The First Avenger – and on opening weekend, no less! The trailers for this movie have looked awesome. Did the movie do as well?

Yes and no. Visually, I really think they nailed it. The costumes, the set designs, . . . → Read More: Review: Captain America]]> (Man, I’m actually burning through my movie picks this year. This is awesome – big thank you to my parents for babysitting.)

Tonight my wife and I settled in for the highly anticipated Captain America: The First Avenger – and on opening weekend, no less! The trailers for this movie have looked awesome. Did the movie do as well?

Yes and no. Visually, I really think they nailed it. The costumes, the set designs, the effects… all excellent. It was set in a romanticized 1940′s and featured enhanced humans, cartoonish disfiguration, futuristic weaponry, and a goody-two-shoes hero. By all rights this thing should fail miserably, but it works. I liked the main characters and acting (especially Stanley Tucci – he created the most human character in that movie). Red Skull was really done well, visually. The set pieces were cool. It was fun to watch.

Unfortunately, it was also predictable and spent significant time setting up the Avengers movie instead of simply telling a Captain America story. I’m not sure it works as well as a stand-alone film as it does a part of a larger story. A lot of the “surprises” in the film are given away in the trailer. There were two major montages, both of which should probably have been shorter, or in the case of the action montage, replaced completely by something better. It was cool to watch, but felt more like an assembly of action shots they wanted to fit into the movie but didn’t have time to get to otherwise.

There are really quite a few ways for me to nit-pick this thing to death, if I’m honest, but that would depress me, so I’m not going to do it. In the end, it was a fun movie and I’m glad I saw it. It looked great and I had a good time watching it. (Can you tell I’m really tired, and my energy for writing this has petered out? Sorry. Maybe I’ll revisit it later – but maybe not.)

My wife and I saw two movies in a row tonight: Green Lantern and Super 8.

Expectations were split for these two. I’ve been looking forward to Super 8 since the first trailer (which, btw, showed absolutely nothing taken from the movie). I had initially been looking forward to Green Lantern since it was first announced, . . . → Read More: Review: Green Lantern / Super 8 Double Feature!]]> My parents came out for the weekend, which means (among other things) free babysitting. That, in turn, means movies!

My wife and I saw two movies in a row tonight: Green Lantern and Super 8.

Expectations were split for these two. I’ve been looking forward to Super 8 since the first trailer (which, btw, showed absolutely nothing taken from the movie). I had initially been looking forward to Green Lantern since it was first announced, but since its release and shockingly bad reviews my expectations feel into a pit.  So I was hoping that the night would average out to a decent time.

Super 8 was really well made, and looked and felt almost exactly the way I expected it to. The Goonies meets E.T. meets Cloverfield. That’s just about a perfect description. You could completely feel the input from both Speilberg and J.J. Abrams. Abrams’ signature lens flares and shaky cams are used liberally. The set designers did an awesome job – they absolutely nailed 1979. The kids were great, especially the two leads. This isn’t a kids movie, though. It’s for adults who saw The Goonies and then grew up. It’s got a lot of “jump” moments, it’s scary, and there’s some significant language. I don’t think they nailed the fatherhood reconciliation thing they were going for, but it was good enough and didn’t detract from the film significantly.

Stick around during the credits to see the finished version of the movie the kids are making in the film. Really funny.

Best line: “Drugs are so bad!”

Easily a solid 4 out of 5 stars. Very good stuff.

I was almost scared to go see Green Lantern. I’ve wanted this movie to rock since it was first announced in 2008. Close to three years I’ve been anticipating this film with excitement and dread. If they pulled it off, it could be pure awesome. If they screwed it up, it would fail miserably. I’ve followed the releases of trailers and clips, and I’ve been riding a roller coaster of emotions. The first trailer looked horrible. The second trailer looked way better. The third trailer looked better yet. Then a few released clips from the film dashed my hopes. Then, when it was finally released this month, the critics stomped the ashes of my hopes, ground them into the dirt, threw water on them, and spit on them for good measure. This film sits at 26% on Rotten Tomatoes as I write this. No one I know has said anything good about this.

I’m almost afraid to say it: I liked it.

I had a good time at this film. I may even like it better than Thor.

Were there problems? Absolutely. Interestingly, one of the places it failed was the same place Super 8 failed – the fatherhood angles. It just didn’t work the way it was intended. I think I would have structured the film differently, if I were in charge. I think it would have played better if we discovered everything along with Hal Jordan, for example. I also probably would have done away with paralleling the growth of Hal into Green Lantern and Hector Hammond into Parallax’s pawn. Hector just wasn’t interesting enough and there was some undeveloped backstory that was referred to as if we already knew it, too.

I also had some preconceived notions of who Hal was and this film certainly didn’t match them.

So those kinds of problems existed, and it’s not that I was unaware of them, but in the end I really didn’t care. I came out having had a good time. Even the released scene from the final battle that went a long way to convincing me I wouldn’t like the movie, came out looking fine within context (well, except for one bit, but I can let that slide). I’d see the sequel in a heartbeat.

I’ve been using Fantastic Four recently as my low watermark for barely watchable superhero movies. I was afraid I would have to start using Green Lantern in its place, but as it turns out that will be unnecessary. I really don’t understand why the general public hasn’t gotten behind this film. My wife enjoyed it. Why didn’t you, Mr. Public? I can see this film landing between 40% and 55% on Rotten Tomatoes, but 26% is too low.

As for me: 3.5 stars out of 5.

Spider-Man 4 is apparently going to shoot in 2010 for a 2011 release. This is information gleaned from an interview with J.K. Simmons, who plays J. Jonah Jameson in the films. Sam Raimi is on-board as director and Tobey McGuire is set to reprise . . . → Read More: Sci-fi rumors and news catch up]]> Well, here we are with more sci-fi news. This time it’ll be a mix of things old and new. Strap on your propeller hat and hang on, ’cause here we go…

Spider-Man 4 is apparently going to shoot in 2010 for a 2011 release. This is information gleaned from an interview with J.K. Simmons, who plays J. Jonah Jameson in the films. Sam Raimi is on-board as director and Tobey McGuire is set to reprise his title role. Kirsten Dunst was unsigned as of the interview, which was a couple weeks ago.

The newer news is that A&E has now released a behind the scenes piece that reveals a bit about the costuming and locations:

“Ever since fans first caught wind of the ‘Battlestar Galactica’ prequel Caprica, they have been eagerly following its development,” said Mark Stern, Executive Vice President, Original Programming for SCI FI & Co-Head Original Content, Universal Cable Productions.  “We wanted to give them a chance to see the pilot in its original form and experience the prequel to the BSG story while that series’ finale was still ringing in their ears. It also affords the creative team an unprecedented chance to get viewers feedback before production on the Caprica series begins this summer.”

See the full press release at Slice of Sci-fi.

The new 5 episode mini-series, which will be the entire season for 2009, will air simultaneously on BBC and BBC America (though we don’t know exactly what dates it will air). And just in time for the NY Comic-Con, we have a trailer.

Warning: this is not for the kids.

Torchwood: Children of Earth trailer

To be honest, it doesn’t look as intriguing as I’d hoped, but the whole “they’ve been here before” thing is pulling me in.

Superman Returns darker

Ever since Superman Returns was released, rumors were flying about the sequel. Would it happen? Would Bryan Singer return to helm it? Would anybody watch it?

Not long ago (May 7th, in fact), we were hearing that Bryan Singer would be getting Superman: The Man of Steel to theaters in 2009 with wall-to-wall action in a sequel . . . → Read More: Superman Returns, but not as expected]]> Warner will follow Marvel model to develop new superhero films : Slice of SciFi

Superman Returns darker

Ever since Superman Returns was released, rumors were flying about the sequel. Would it happen? Would Bryan Singer return to helm it? Would anybody watch it?

Not long ago (May 7th, in fact), we were hearing that Bryan Singer would be getting Superman: The Man of Steel to theaters in 2009 with wall-to-wall action in a sequel to Returns. Personally, I was pretty happy with that news. I really think Singer knows how to pull off a movie that’s both intelligent and action-packed, and respects the source material.

But now we hear that in the wake of the success of The Dark Knight, Warner Bros. will be putting a darker focus on all its superhero properties.

For fans, this means that the sequel to “Superman Returns” won’t be happening. Instead, the studio will look to take a page from this year’s “Incredible Hulk” and reboot the franchise. Part of this is a need to freshen the franchise, but part of this can also be attributed to the fact that “Returns” struggled to make back the investment Warner Brothers put into the movie.

[...]

Mr. Robinov wants his next pack of superhero movies to be bathed in the same brooding tone as “The Dark Knight.” Creatively, he sees exploring the evil side to characters as the key to unlocking some of Warner Bros.’ DC properties. “We’re going to try to go dark to the extent that the characters allow it,” he says. That goes for the company’s Superman franchise as well.

That’s disappointing. While I get treating superhero movies as real world and serious is important in creating believability, forcing a dark tone on everything is, I think, a mistake. It’s completely appropriate for Batman, but Superman’s main character traits are hope and optimism, and a bit of naiveté (at least on the surface). It is possible to go darker with him temporarily – and I think it could be done really well – but I really think it has to be in a sequel to be good. The character has to be developed as an incorruptible, “thank God he’s here” kind of character.

Plus, I gotta imagine this new direction means a significant delay before the Boy Scout graces the screen again. So that annoys me, too.

On a side note, the linked article also mentions the other properties under development: Green Lantern, Flash, Green Arrow, and Wonder Woman. I’m excited about each of them. All could translate very well to the big screen.