It’s hard to say.  On paper it all seems like a recipe for success: big Ridley Scott historical epic, the opening of what could be a new successful adventure/action franchise for Disney, lots of sequels to initially popular films across the board, and yet things are still stagnant and dull.  ‘How to Train Your Dragon’ took me entirely by surprise in terms of both its quality and its longevity, while other films that I thought would ride much higher on the charts - like ‘Kick-Ass’ - faded relatively quickly.

Is it just that these movies are mostly not any good?  ‘Robin Hood’ was a tremendous disappointment, and ‘Iron Man 2’ was just pretty swell; I haven’t seen most of the others yet (and will never see ‘Sex and the City 2’), but the critical and popular consensus has not been kind.  Are people listening to the critics more now, for whatever reason?  Has the lingering coldness of temperature in some areas prevented the start of the traditional summer rush?  I don’t know.

Last year’s crop from around this time would be difficult to beat in any event in terms of their draw, if not always their quality.  ‘Star Trek’ and ‘Up’ swept across the earth with a justly irresistible power, while ‘Angels and Demons,’ ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’ and ‘Terminator: Salvation’ commanded a good deal of attention in spite of their general poorness.  Oddly enough, the only one of those five based on an original concept - ‘Up’ - was also the best.

As for things to which I’m looking forward this summer:

- ‘Splice’ carries a lot of promise, if you’re into somewhat cerebral horror films. Vincenzo Natali has already proven himself as a director, and Guillermo del Toro’s involvement is typically a good sign (for me, anyway).
- ‘Whiz Kids’, a documentary apparently about the academic achievement of the top echelon of American students in an international context, looks very good and has so far received near-unanimous praise.
- I don’t think ‘The A-Team’ will be all that great, but I like the people involved and may check it out.
- ‘Toy Story 3’, certainly.
- I nurse a strange yet still abiding interest in ‘The Sorceror’s Apprentice.’
- ‘Inception’ is an absolute certainty.
- ‘Get Low’, the bizarre 1930s Tennessee folk tale about which there’s been so much buzz, is also on the “must see” pile.
- I’ve been waiting for *Scott Pilgrim vs. The World* for four years.
- ‘The Expendables’ will likely be the most ridiculous thing ever, but I’ve really got no choice.
- ‘Tales from Earthsea’, the feature debut from Hayao Miyazaki’s son, will certainly be worth seeing if I can find anywhere that’s playing it.
- I don’t know when ‘The Adjustment Bureau’ opens, but I’ll see that too, probably.

There’s other stuff coming up in the fall, too (like ‘Let Me In’ and ‘Deathly Hallows I’), but for the summer that covers most of it.  It’s not too bad, really, whatever the box office returns end up being.

I’ve been to the movies once lately - specifically, I saw Robin Hood, against SDG’s advice, which was a mistake. I think this is a rare case where SDG’s review failed to do justice to the badness of a movie.

Be that as it may, I haven’t stopped hoping that the 3D craze will die away before it takes over the movies completely. Perhaps the latest Shrek movie will be taken as a sign that the novelty of paying extra money to wear dark glasses during a movie to see an effect that could be gotten more cheaply from a Viewmaster is wearing off. On the other hand, perhaps not. Perhaps more abysmal live-action Dr. Seuss adaptations are coming down the pike, and all of them will be in 3D, combined with more idiotic pseudo-mythical attempts at heroic saga. Picture that sort of thing applied to, say, The Lorax.

Meanwhile, older demographics will find themselves with fewer and fewer original stories to deal with and more adaptations of things that don’t adapt well to screen (sometimes I think studio execs decide what to adapt by throwing darts in a bookstore), as well as more sequels and remakes of movies from ten to twenty years ago that did good service (or maybe not) in their time and should be left to honorable repose. In the short term, this could mean a Princess Bride sequel, the third Batman movie being done in 3D, more would-be epic perversions of ancient or medieval mythology, etc. In the long term, it will mean a dark period for Western cinema, as Hollywood studios collectively decide that “real movies” aren’t worth their time and the pursuit of excellence is left solely up to India, Japan, and small independent productions. Many of these latter will be very good, but the next generation of them will be forced to reinvent the wheel for themselves, without benefit of money or an established name, and 95% of the movie-going public will never hear their names.

That sort of thing is what I’m dreading. On the other hand, despite what I said above, I am looking forward to Toy Story 3. I may catch it in 2D if I can, but we’ll see.

The marketing campaigns for Inception, The A-Team and Toy Story 3 have been absolutely solid, and I like enough of the people involved in each of those productions enough to want to see those movies as soon as possible.

I’m also intrigued by Predators simply because Nimrod Antal has proved to be a pretty capable director of suspenseful, claustrophobic B-movies (at least based on his last two films, Vacancy and especially Armored).

I also like the concept behind The Adjustment Bureau, at least insofar as it has been explained to me so far.

But beyond that, yeah, I can’t think of anything I’m particularly itching to see this summer.

Re: star power, I think Johnny Depp may be the exception that proves the rule.  One of the lessons of the past year, I’d say, is that movie stars are nowhere near as important to a movie’s success as the “property” value of each movie.

If you look at, say, the ten top-grossing movies worldwide in 2009, they break down into categories like so:

—Avatar, 2012 and The Hangover had no major stars to speak of, and were sold purely on concept.
—Harry Potter 6, Transformers 2 and Twilight 2 were sequels to movies that had *made* stars of their actors; to the extent that any of those actors are “stars”, it is because those films were hits, not vice versa.
—Ice Age 3 and Up were cartoons, and extensions of popular brands, at that.
—Sherlock Holmes was sold largely on the star power of Robert Downey Jr. (which, at the time of the film’s release, hadn’t really been proved yet outside of the Iron Man franchise).
—Angels & Demons was a sequel to a hit film that starred Tom Hanks.

And for what it’s worth, if we look just a bit beyond the Top Ten, we can also find relatively star-less movies like Alvin and the Chipmunks 2 (#11) and Star Trek (#13).  And further down the list, we’ve got star-free films like District 9, which cost only $30 million to produce yet somehow grossed over $200 million worldwide (and it scored a Best Picture nomination, to boot—very rare for a sci-fi film!).

In contrast, relatively expensive star-powered movies like A Christmas Carol, starring Jim Carrey, or The Taking of Pelham 123, starring Denzel Washington and John Travolta, didn’t do so well.

And two of the supposedly biggest stars of our time, Will Smith and Tom Cruise, basically sat the year out—possibly because some of their most recent films (Seven Pounds, Lions for Lambs) have been box-office disappointments too.  (Cruise did have a modest success with Valkyrie, but “modest” is still a bit of a comedown for a star of Cruise’s calibre.)

So, um, make of that what you will.  Once in a while, sure, with films like Alice in Wonderland or Sherlock Holmes, a bit of star power can help at the box office—but that seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

I want a decent sic-fi flick with fresh ideas that doesn’t feel the need to add soft-core porn to try to get more teens interested. If producers want to make money, they have to forget the marketing. People want heart, not the sleazy meaningless stuff they see on tv every night.

For those who do not like today’s movies, what I think should be done is reserve one or two screens for older movies (1930s-early 1960s).  Movies that were meant to be seen on the big screen.

When I was a teenager, my mom took me to all the big time blockbusters…Sound of Music, Lost Horizon (okay, it was the remake), Mame, and when Gone With the Wind was shown on the big screen…I was there.

I have to admit a tiny part of me died inside just from reading the words “Princess Bride sequel” in that order. No. Please, no. I’m not excited one whit for the A-Team remake (or really any remake), as they always come across as those scenes in various TV shows where the characters turn on the TV and find someone in their fictional universe has made a TV show about their lives: put in terms of Plato’s allegory, they’re shadows of shadows (and only funny for about 30 seconds). That said, I’d watch a “MacGyver” movie remake, but ONLY if it starred Richard Dean Anderson.

I am however excited for both “The Matrix: Part IV”, er I mean, “Inception” but most of all TOY STORY 3!!!! I can’t be the only person though who’s at least a little morbidly curious about what “Toy Story 3” as done by Circle 7 Animation (as originally planned) would have been like. It would have sucked, to be sure (and made John Lasseter cry), but it probably would have been unintentionally hilarious, too.

Hi Stephen
The most important lesson or the elephant in the room is that latest movies are, by and large, terrible.  Unlike the films of the Golden age, they are mostly written, acted in, produced and directed by people who have not experienced hardships, do not love their country, and do not have a religious ethos.  By contrast, the Golden Age filmmakers were often immigrants who appreciated America, survived the depression, volunteered for World War II and respected religion.  The latter had the advantage of having to adhere to the Motion Picture Code which forrced them to be creative and subtle rather than excessive, crude and over the top.  That’s why even younger adults are flocking to Turner Classic Movies.  I agree with LRoy that a screen or two should be reserved for the classics best seen on the big screen.
Best regards,
Peter E. Dans (AKA The Physician at the Movies0

I suspect a lot may also be due to the economy at large. For most people now, extra cash for entertainment is a little hard to come by. Every time I’ve gone to the movies lately, I’ve found it quite easy to spend close to $100 for my family of 4. I don’t have that kind of disposable income anymore with my hours and pay cut back. Cheaper to wait till it comes out on video.

They should have released “Solomon Kane” here in the US. Great Sword and Sorcery flick based on a pulp character from the 1920s.

For good war flicks, Germany released “The Red Baron”, a VERY good WWI movie without the corny fluff that ruined ‘Flyboys’.

But then, I have weird tastes, i guess. I’m waiting for the new Tron movie.

Other Victor wrote:
I have to admit a tiny part of me died inside just from reading the words “Princess Bride sequel” in that order.

On account of I’m pretty sure I weigh more than you, the part of me that died was probably bigger. So, on that basis ...

NOOOO. Please, God, NOOOOOOOOOO.

Actually, Goldman’s been teasing the ‘lost sequel’ to The Princess Bride, “Buttercup’s Baby”, in several of the paperback reprints of the novel. I don’t expect he’ll ever actually do anything with it, but stranger things have happened.

Yeah ... and y’know what else you are, Stephanie or whatever your name is—you’re a big poopy-pants.

(Not expecting this comment to last longer than lank’s ... but it’ll be funny while it lasts.)

Thanks everyone for some of the most thoughtful discussion my combox has received to date! (Yes, even you, Victor Morton Victor. )
 
Nick Milne, great observations. I think you’re definitely right about where we were last year compared to where we are this year, and I agree pretty much completely with your rundown of the summer.
 
Pachy, I tried to warn you! FWIW, I think the live-action Seuss well has run dry, although the success of Horton could mean more CGI Seuss. If it’s Blue Sky, bring it on.
 
Peter, FWIW, I almost titled that bullet point “Johnny Depp. Not Jake Gyllenhaal.” I decided to generalize because (a) I was only saying star power counts (not that it’s key), and (b) star power is an ambiguous phrase that can mean more than celebrity and audience interest. Downey Jr. boosted Sherlock Holmes not just by being the popular star of Iron Man, but by the wattage of his performances in both. Not saying that a powerhouse performance guarantees a hit, only that it counts.
 
As for A Christmas Carol and Pelham 1 2 3, I could formulate rules to explain their tepid performance. But life is short!
 
Micah: Hang on for Inception.
 
VV and VMV: Hey, I never said anyone was talking about a Princess Bride sequel…
 
Peter E. Dans, M.D: No question, most movies today are terrible. I’m not yet convinced that most movies yesterday weren’t terrible too, if in quite different ways. TCM plays, okay, well, not the best of the best, but selections from the upper, what, third or so of films of yore? The sorts of historical factors you cite do go to differences in the movie culture today. Do those differences amount to a general advantage to e.g. Code-era Hollywood? I’m not sure.

LRoy and Dr. D.: I also would welcome more theatrical showings of classic movies, but only if it can be done without 3D conversion (Beauty and the Beast in 3D - gad), and, equally important, without chopping originally square pictures to fit a modern theatrical aspect ratio. Didn’t they do that with “Gone with the Wind”?
SDG:
“FWIW, I think the live-action Seuss well has run dry, although the success of Horton could mean more CGI Seuss. If it’s Blue Sky, bring it on.”
Fair enough, but if anyone ever targets “The Lorax” I’ll still be apprehensive.

“Fair enough, but if anyone ever targets “The Lorax” I’ll still be apprehensive.”
 
Well, yeah. Or The Butter Battle Book.

but when they make a film about two tweedle beetles battling in a butter-battered bottle, it’s called FOX IN SOCKS

My poor mouth can’t say that, no sir. My poor mouth is much too slow, sir.

Of course Tweedle Beetles would never get into a butter battle. When Tweedle Beetles battle, it’s with paddles in a puddle, and the puddle’s in a bottle on a noodle-eating poodle.

Now bud—hand to heaven. Did you look that up (I knew butter wasn’t involved, but I had to riff off what you had written)?

The only time I ever nearly got in trouble for public drunkenness was when I went into a Waldenbooks that shared a mall with the place a buddy and I had been drinking since happy hour. I came across FOX IN SOCKS and I said I loved it as a boy. And I told my friend, to paraphrase, “my poor mouth CAN say that, yes sir.” I am not generally a “loud drunk” (I become quieter and more cutting), but I began reading it aloud. After a few pages, the clerk apparently picked up the phone (whether to call Dirty Harry or Paul Blart, I can’t say). My friend noticed this (I did not) and quietly hustled me and himself out of the bookstore.

Hey ... it’s a safer public spectacle than saying “I’ll whip every guy in this room.”

Are you kidding? Six kids, and that. No looking up. I could have quoted verbatim, but it was more fun to paraphrase.

Gee, now I’m feeling guilty for only reading aloud to my children the various audio software manuals which I have laying around (“And THAT’S how you can achieve a lower sampling latency, just by updating your firmware and audio drivers. G’night!”

If they ever do make another Dr. Suess book into a movie, though, I really really really hope it’s “The Seven Lady Godivas”.

“If they ever do make another Dr. Suess book into a movie, though, I really really really hope it’s “The Seven Lady Godivas”.”

Ha! That would be something to see. The funny thing, though, is that if you combine the concepts of that, The Butter Battle Book, and The Lorax, you end up something that sounds very like the next Avatar.

Clearly, this is the worst summer movie season in years.  I’ve been saying it to my children for weeks, much to everyone’s dismay.  (Taking the kids to the movies keeps me young and I like to believe that the kids will cherish the memory of summer trips to the theater with Dad.)  There’s almost nothing I’m looking forward to seeing after June.  How sad is it that the most exciting part of my most recent visit to the cinema was seeing the teaser poster for “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader?”  How is it that I’m expecting more from the already disappointing Narnia series than from anything Hollywood has to pitch before Christmas?  Even Pixar’s summer offering feels a bit stale and at the very least lacks the mystery promised by “Wall-E,” “Up,” and other recent surprises.  Summer hasn’t even arrived yet, and already it’s over on this score.  I guess it’s time to get outside and enjoy the sunshine.

Just a suggestion for folks with kids who are facing a dismal summer movie season this year: check out Netflix’s “Watch Instantly” service. They’ve recently added streaming video to the Wii, so you don’t need to buy a new BluRay player or additional set-top box (so long as you have a Wii). For $9/month (so $21 for the summer if you cancel in September), you get access to their streaming library which contains (among other things) pretty much every VeggieTales episode, a bunch of Buster Keaton and Abbot and Costello Movies, most of the recent Pixar films, and, my personal favorite:

“The Golden Voyage of Sinbad”, which our 3 and 8 year olds really loved (especially the Harryhausen-animated stop-motion dancing Kali statue, which was rather remarkable). There is also an evil wizard in it and he’s played by Tom Baker (the Fourth Doctor Who) and he totally steals the show. Lots of fun. They also liked the Abbot and Costello “Jack and the Beanstalk”.

“3D is key”

No Way.

In my opinion the STORY is key.

I care not if a movie is in 3D or is a grainy 2D movie. If the plot is good I will love it.

That is why I hated Avatar. Besides the pretty esterior it is a movie with no value at all. Sincerely I thought it was a waste of time and money on my part.

I think it is more fun to watcvh a good old movie with poor SFX than watch the dribble that oozed from Hollywood the last few years.

—-

Less money for SFX and more money to GOOD writers and ORIGINAL ideas!

—-

As a gamer, I see that the same problem come to video-games. All the effort is put into the graphics and little is put into the story.

For some reason, in the middle of one of the more interesting comboxes I’ve seen in awhile, Lenk wants to make sure I know that readers aren’t interested in what I have to say. Lenk, when I find a writer dull in one or more senses of the word, I don’t read him. That’s what grown-ups do. I suspect that you know your juvenile name-calling doesn’t bother me, and you know your comments will be removed, so what’s the point? Do you enjoy bothering other comboxers who are stupid enough to enjoy my blog with email alerts? Do you think God is pleased by your behavior? I ask rhetorically; as I’ve already acknowledged, I have little insight into your condition, and I tend to doubt you have much more yourself. If it’s attention you’re after, it ends here, friend.

Ismael, yes, I agree with you about story being key in fact, but I think you misunderstood my point. When I said “3D is key,” I explicitly said these were not necessarily the lessons I want Hollywood to learn—just the actual conclusions that Hollywood studios might come to.
 
The example you gave, Avatar, proves my point. Hollywood doesn’t care that you hated it—they care that it’s the top grossing film in history.
 
Certainly I don’t think that 3D is key ... on the contrary, I’m on record wanting to see more movies with substance of the sort that don’t need and wouldn’t benefit from 3D.

“Ha! That would be something to see. The funny thing, though, is that if you combine the concepts of that, The Butter Battle Book, and The Lorax, you end up something that sounds very like the next Avatar.”

Best. Comment. Ever.

Since seeing BABIES in early May, I’ve trekked out to the American Film Institute theater in suburban Maryland several times, to see stuff like the original Korean THE HOUSEMAID (1960), a couple of early Kurosawa films (STRAY DOG and ONE WONDERFUL SUNDAY, 1948 and 1947), a couple of Michael Caine pictures (1965’s ALFIE and 1986’s MONA LISA), and a couple of Mike Nichols films (VIRGINIA WOOLF from 1966 and CARNAL KNOWLEDGE from 1971). In that same period I believe I’ve seen two new commercially released movies, neither of which is a “big Hollywood film” (the Argentine Oscar winner THE SECRET IN THEIR EYES, and the Sundance hit PLEASE GIVE).

I’m not generally an “it all stinks today” nostalgist, and if I could underline one comment Steve made and paste it Banksy-style everywhere, it is that TCM (and similar channels) only show the cream of the crop from past decades.

But. Honestly. The Pixar and Christopher Nolan films aside, there is nothing in the Hollywood summer offerings that has my hopes up in advance (though critical buzz will always change my mind). I’m also eager to see GET HIM TO THE GREEK, but not on the possibility that it might be a great work of art—just lowbrow guy-humor hilarity (Russell Brand is never not funny, but he is ... um ... an acquired taste that few around here have, I suspect).

What we are seeing in Hollywood, I think, is the result of a post-literate post-judgement society, one where attention spans are short, more-than-nominal literacy is rare, “pay attention” is considered a fascist demand, and all we want are jolts. Forget third-act problems—it’s rare in Hollywood to see coherent second acts. I don’t mean to hearken back to Ebert’s column about real movies, but the seven films at AFI, all of which I would grade at least a “7,” are “real movies.” They require that you pay attention, not because they’re difficult, but because they pay off over time and in their entirety. MONA LISA ends with a relatively short and realistic gunfight, but what makes it great is the journey there—the love story between Bob Hoskins and Cathy Tyson, Hoskins’ mob conflicts—and the meaning that that journey gives (or not) to the carnage. To see Alfie and Martha at the end confused about what’s it all about does not pay off unless you’ve followed them on (in Alfie’s case) his Pilgrim’s Progress or (in Martha’s) her sad retreat from happy delusion. And the three Asian films actually require you to read during the movie, though if American audiences would ever look at foreign films, THE HOUSEMAID and STRAY DOG at least fit reasonably comfortably into old Hollywood genres (the femme fatale and gangster films).

Not regretting moving out to the country. Terrible list of movies. I’m not missing anything.

Dreck in 3-D is still dreck