Summer Movies I Hope Don’t Suck - 2012 Part 2

Ok, here is the rest of my summer movie preview.  My wife made plain in her comments on Part 1 as to how those particular movies already mentioned will fare around our house.  Guess I'll be seeing The Raven by my lonesome.  That's ok.  I like scary movies...

Prometheus (June 8)


 
I’ve loved the Alien films since I was a kid.  What, you say this isn’t an Alien movie?  You can spin that sorry song ‘til you’re blue in the face, but I’m not buying it.  The trailer for this one screams Alien-prequel.  Try telling me that Ridley Scott just accidentally made that trailer look like the old Alien trailer that I used to love to watch on my old VHS copy of James Cameron’s Aliens , and I’ll tell you that you know nothing worth knowing.

Ok, so even if it doesn’t have the actual Alien in it, or there isn’t a facehugger in sight, it is gratifying to see an interesting looking sci-fi flick out from Mr. Scott.  It’s been awhile since he did anything that wasn’t more on the historic epic side, that I can recall.  All I can say is, it's about time.  And please explain for us what the Space Jockey is.  Please.  That thing has bugged me since I saw Alien for the first time, and continues to do so to this day.  Is he just chilling with a big telescope?  And why would he be doing that when he’s got an alien chest-burster just a wriggling and a squirmin to get out of him?  Why Mr. Scott?  Why indeed?  You owe me some answers, and this movie better deliver.

Probability of suckage::  It’s got Charlize Theron in it too.  And that guy who did Magneto in X-Men First Class.  And it's by Ridley Scott.  And the trailer is just like the original Alien movie trailer.  Based on those things, my calculations indicate that this will have a potential probability of 5% suckage.  And that’s only if the popcorn is stale.

Probability of seeing it anyway:  100%.  Did I not mention that it looks like an Alien prequel?  Come on!  You must not know me.  I’d be fourth in line if I had the time/money.


Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (June 22)


 
The Great Emancipator dispatched vamps in his spare time?  When did he even have spare time in which to re-dead the undead?  After all, I kinda envision Abe as being a rather busy guy, what with being the first Republican elected to the presidency, and that whole Civil War thing, and that Gettysburg Address, and finally getting shot at Ford’s Theatre and all.  And I’m sure he had other things to do too, like eat and sleep and make a good witticism or two.

This one is based on a novel, which is on my reading list, as it so happens.  I shall have to read the book before watching the movie, and then I can do a “Dual Review” of them.  I’d suspect the book will be better than the film.  But seeing Jefferson Davis suck the blood of some hapless southern belle might just make the movie worth my dime.  Seeing "The Railsplitter" go after some vampire rebel scum should be entertaining as well.

Probability of suckage::  Tough to tell.  One of the United State’s most revered presidents made out as a slayer of the unholy Nosferatu?  That could go either way.  I hate to say it, but this one will need an evaluation closer to the time that it actually comes out.  But for now, without the bias of hype and having not read the book yet, I’d have to say I predict it gets a 30% chance of suckage.

Probability of seeing it anyway:  85%.  It’s Abe Lincoln killing vampires.  That is something you almost have to see, just because it screams “weirdly awesome.”  But unless finances improve, I’d expect not to see it until it hits the cheap seats.  Prometheus gets my first-run bucks for the month of June, without question.


G.I. Joe: Retaliation (June 29)


 
Oh please.  The first one was almost amusing, but what possible reason did they have for making another one?  Yes, it has Bruce Willis in it.  But Bruce isn’t quite as cool as he was back in the days of Die Hard (and has much less hair now, to boot), nor as cool as when he made The Sixth Sense and gave M. Night Shamylan some respectability from which he would slowly fall away from.  I predict poor M. Night will be writing/directing commercials for "Al’s Toy Barn" soon, at this rate (though I am one of the few people I know who would defend Devil).

Ok, back to G.I. Joe.  As I was more of a Transformers fan in my youth, the idea of seeing G.I. Joe on the big screen with special effects that would have been purely science fiction when the cartoon debuted is not exactly what I’d call high on my priority list.  In fact, I think I’d rather get high and then watch this movie.  it would be more fun that way.  Then I could sit in the front row and go: “Whoa man, Bruce Willis’s nose is huge!  Look out, the bad guy is behind you!!  Hey, I can almost imagine I can see down the lead actress’s shirt from here!”  Yeah, I’d be that guy at the show, if I was high.  And I’d have to be high, in order to spend first-run bucks on G.I. Joe.

Probability of suckage::  90%.  And that is generous.  Maybe it will be another “feel-good” movie of the summer.  Maybe it will reinforce my patriotism and remind me that we’re all on the same side (except for those of us who aren’t, you dirty terrorist scum).  Maybe I’ll win enough money through no direct actions of my own and be able to do anything I want this summer, including throw money away by going to the premiere of G.I. Joe: Retaliation.  But don’t count on it.

Probability of seeing it anyway: 60%.  But strictly on Redbox.  I don’t think I’d be bored enough to even go see it at the cheap seats.


The Amazing Spider-Man (July 3)
 

 
Didn’t this movie come out already?  I could’ve sworn there was this movie with Tobey McGuire and Kirsten Dunst...  Oh well.  I am getting old, and my memory does play tricks on me from time to time.

As has been alluded to in other previews I’ve read while looking up the movies that are coming this summer, it seems a bit early to be doing a reboot of the Spider-Man series.  Yes, Spider-Man 3: The Suckiness Within, was not one to watch repeatedly unless you were showing it to people who were about to be water-boarded during their interrogations at an undisclosed location.  That would probably be a good way to break down their will prior to extracting a confession.

On the other hand, the first Spider-Man movie was pretty good.  So why reboot it?  Do you really have something to beat Willem DaFoe’s performance as the Green Goblin?  No wait, do you have something to beat Willem DaFoe’s performance as Norman Oswald?  Do you even have something that can beat Willem DaFoe's performance as Willen DaFoe?  He was scarier without the mask on in Spider-Man, in my opinion.  I kinda doubt you can beat that.  Although I think that Emma Stone gal who will be playing Mary Jane Parker is much hotter than Kirsten Dunst.  Just my two cents.  But is she cute enough that I’d plunk down cash to see this on the big screen?  Probably not.

Probability of suckage::  60%.  Sorry, but I’m not one who thinks we need more Spider-Man.  Like I have said recently, with the money they spent on this movie, millions of starving kids could have gotten a Happy Meal.  I don’t think what we’ll get out of The Amazing Spider-Man will beat that.  Sorry, but that’s my take on the situation.

Probability of watching it anyway: 25%.  And strictly on Redbox, or in the cheap seats if they aren’t showing anything else even remotely interesting.  Like a documentary on the migration habits of the African Horned Squirrel.  That would get my bucks first, in this case.


The Dark Knight Rises (July 20)

Oh Batman, you just can't keep Gotham City happy and safe, now can you?  We've seen you try for years.  You did it as Adam West in the swingin '60s.  You tried again many years later as Michael Keaton in 1989 and made box office results hand-over-fist.  I remember every darn theater was showing Batman all the time.  Then there was that odd Christmas-y Batman Returns, which holds its own special little place in the weird movie section of my teenage brain. 

Then you took a neon/dayglo-infested detour with Val Kilmer, but I enjoyed the look and fun semi-campiness of Batman Forever enough to forgive any of your oddities.  Then there was that endeavor with George Clooney and Arnold Schwarzenegger that is best forgotten.  And then a few years later, you were taken up by Christopher-"I make odd/stylish movies and you better be cool with that" Nolan, and we got Batman Begins.  Batman Begins what, I always wanted to know.

Then came The Dark Knight.  What can I say about that movie that hasn't been said before?  Heath Ledger made that movie.  Without his performance, and his death shortly afterward, I don't think people would be all agog over this next follow-on, The Dark Knight Rises.

And you see, I think that is the problem.  Having watched the first five or so minutes of The Dark Knight Rises on the internet after some well intending soul posted the footage from the Imax preview, I can't say as I was among the "agog" ones.  Really, the trailer from above also leaves me a bit cold.  I am not as impressed by this next and supposedly last Batman movie as I was by The Dark Knight.

Now I've been harping on this for some time, so I'll just toss it out again.  Anne Hathaway had better be pretty impressive as Catwoman to come even close to overcoming the bias I have against her playing the role of Catwoman.  Michelle Pfeiffer did it well.  And Julie Newmar was unbeatable.  You can't top that sexy, sultry, scary thing she had going on.

As for Bane...  Not being a comic book guy, I can't recall anything about him that makes him seem like the guy to take Batman out.  I'd have picked a plethora of baddies before him.  Perhaps he'll wow me, but so far, not so much.

Probability of suckage: Tough call.  Some people would say this movie has zero probability of sucking, since it is the swan song for Batman under Nolan's guidance.  Some people would say, like myself, that this movie can't do any better than The Dark Knight did, and therefore it's got a good chance of achieving suck-hood.  Some people would say that a grown man could find more interesting questions to pursue in his spare time.  I'd also agree with them.  For the moment, let's just say that I personally give it, based on the trailer alone, a 20% chance of suckage.  And we'll leave it at that.

Probability of seeing it anyway: 100%.  I can't say I won't go see it.  That would just flat out be lying.  But I won't be a fanboy lined up in the premiere showing either.  Like when The Dark Knight came out, I will wait and see what people are saying about it, then after its been in the theater for a few weeks, I might go and see it on a hot summer afternoon.  Then we'll see if it really lives up to the hype.  But between you and me, I kinda doubt it.

The Bourne Legacy (August 3)

A Bourne movie without Matt Damon in it?  We'll see.  Pretty big shoes to fill, don't you think?  New guy had better have his stuff together, ya know?  The trailer looks exciting, but you can cut Sleepless in Seattle down to two minutes and make it look like a horror flick (I'd argue it was a horror flick), so you can make this look interesting too.

I must admit, the Bourne trilogy was pretty good, in my opinion.  High octane and pretty violent, but for sheer spy movie thrills, it hits the right buttons.  And the lead character's first name is a good selling point (haha).

But will this new movie be able to live up to its predecessors, or will it be this year's Quantum of Solice?  On that, I didn't hate that movie, but it wasn't one I'd watch more than once.  Just too... abrupt, and Daniel Craig doesn't do James Bond for me.  Sorry.  He's cool and all, but not that cool.

Anyway, I'm off subject here.  I really don't know much about this movie, and it is still a ways out there, so I'll just give a predication and then wait and see if it comes true.  Here's hoping I get something right this summer.

Probability of suckage: 45%.  Why?  Because it doesn't have Matt Damon in it, and therefore how can you call it a Bourne movie?  Not that I'm a hardcore Matt Damon fan by any stretch of the imagination, but he sorta was Jason Bourne, so how can you have a Bourne movie without... well I seem to be asking a really obvious question here, don't ya think?  I'll stick by my 40% until convinced otherwise.

Probability of seeing it anyway:  45%.  And probably next fall, after it is in the cheap seats.  Or on Redbox.  But not in the first-run theater, by any means.  I didn't see all of the Bourne trilogy in the regular theater, so why would I see this that way, huh?

Total Recall (August 3)

Speaking of movies that Arnold Schwarzenegger can't call his finest moments...  Well, it was better than some of the Governator's films.  But not his best, by any means.  And I hear this one won't be taking place on Mars like the original, so I assume that there will be no weird little alien guy coming out of a regular guy's chest, nor any eyes popping out of heads due to decompression (that scene was just silly, if you know anything about what low atmospheric pressure actually would do to a human body).

Like that last preview, I can't say I know much about this movie.  If it is based on the Phillip K. Dick short story, then it has promise.  If it is a hacked version of the 1990 film starring Arnold, it has the possibility of high suckage values.  If it is just a movie that somebody decided to name "Total Recall" and has nothing to do with either of the things listed above... then somebody is just weird.

At least his wife is better looking than Sharon Stone was.  Is that Kate Beckinsale?  And cool special effects.  But you can't beat that "head thing" that Schwarzenegger wore while trying to escape to Mars in the first movie.  That thing was nifty.  And I'm sure there will be no original old-skool Nintendo version game of this movie, like there was of the 1990 film.  What am I saying?  That game sucked hard-core!  One time a buddy and me wanted to rent a game on Friday night, and Blockbuster Video didn't have anything in stock for the Nintendo other than Total Recall - the NES game.  It was a really long and boring Friday night, let me tell you.

Probability of suckage: I don't know.  I'll throw out a figure.  How does 55% strike you?  I haven't read the short story on which the idea is based, so I can't say if that one was any good, let alone how this movie will turn out.  The 1990 film was good campy fun.   Had some uniquely pleasant moments, that one, but overall, it's a dumb movie.  So here's hoping they do better this time around.

Probability of seeing it anyway: I'd have to say 70 to 80%.  And by the time this one is in Redbox, I'll probably be talking about how the movies actually turned out.  So I'd bet this one will be among those that I watch the cheap seats for.  When it does come out in the cheap seats, I'll see it.  Unless I hear it is really bad, or unless the world ends... no wait, that isn't supposed to happen until December of this year, right Mayans?  Here's hoping I get all the movies I intend to watch seen before then, yes?


The parting comment:

Source: LOL Snaps.com

 When out of town fighting crime is a must, always stay at Best Western.