The Sorcerer's Apprentice

Up next for review: The Sorcerer's Apprentice starring Nicholas Cage, Jay Baruchel and Alfred Molina. Directed by John Turteltaub and produced by Jerry Bruckheimer.

I have to start by asking why did this movie get such a bad review? Most of the press that I saw after the opening weekend was very negative but since we don't listen to the press we saw it anyway. Imagine my surprise when I didn't hate it. In fact, it's a decent family action/adventure, with the emphasis on family. It's a kid's movie at heart, but an entertaining one.

Nicholas Cage stars as Balthazar, a former apprentice of Merlin, who believes that Dave (Jay Baruchel) is the next Prime Merlinian and as such is the only person who can destroy the evil sorceress Morgana. Cage is very entertaining as the mentor, despite being a toned-down version of his manic self, and convincing during the battle scenes. Baruchel, however, I find...flat. It's likely due to the overexposure of the superhero movies which rely on the hero-in-geek's clothing trope quite heavily. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is no exception and that isn't Baruchel's fault.I think Baruchel himself does an ok job in this movie. He's no superstar but he does manage to get the audience to laugh and that's really all we can ask for from his character.

The most interesting bit for me were the references within the movie to other movies because I found it odd. I won't spoil which movies The Sorcerer's Apprentice riffs on but some are more subtle than others so pay attention. I found them very obvious and at first I wasn't sure if it was a joke or if it was intentional. Why choose those movies to reference? They felt out of place to me. They also felt a little forced and shoe-horned into the movie's world, but the audience liked them and laughed when appropriate so I suppose that's a success (if you're looking for cheap laughs when the scene requires no laughter). I just didn't understand why the tribute to Disney's Fantasia wasn't enough and why the other two movies referenced were chosen.

Sorcerer's Apprentice offers tons of action, lots of fun, and a few laughs. I say see it. Sure it's formulaic and light but that is what it's supposed to be. It is Disney, after all.

rottentomatoes.com here

IMDB here

Will The Hobbit Films EVER make it to the big screen?

The powers that be have been talking about releasing J.R.R Tolkien's The Hobbit ever since the LOTR trilogy was released. What seems to be hindering this film (which is slated to be split into two films and released in 2012 and 2013) is the lack of direction, literally.

Newest developments see Peter Jackson taking the helm of this project after director Guillermo del Toro dropped out.

Jackson, already a produce on the films, is hesitant to direct the films and having to devote another significant chunk of his life to Tolkien's work.

I, personally, would have loved to see del Toro's take on this classic story, which has already become a classic film because of the previous installments in the LOTR trilogy. However, I would not be disappointed if Jackson did resume a position directing Tolkien's story.

Who do you think should direct The Hobbit films?

Jackson to Direct The Hobbit?

Green Zone

This movie tells the story of an American soldier who starts to question the intelligence used in the infiltration of WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) sites in Iraq that suspiciously turn out to be nothing more than abandoned warehouses and so begins his investigation as to the source of the intelligence despite pressure from above not to do so.

Don’t let the fact that it’s directed by the same director of The Bourne Ultimatum fool you into believing that it’s just a carbon copy Bourne-esque action flick. Far from it. The political, social, and cultural tension shines through in the film’s engaging dialog and brilliant camera work. As such, you need to pay attention to each character’s motives, and despite the movie’s heavy usage of dialog, Green Zone rewards you with a thrilling ending that definitely should not be missed.

Overall, this isn’t a typical action movie where an explosion occurs every five minutes and, honestly, it’s somewhat refreshing. It’ll keep you thinking, questioning, and leave you with a satisfying sense of completion. My only regret is that I didn’t see this movie at the cinema because some scenes are incredibly cinematic and would have looked awesome on the big screen. If you happen to see a copy at your local video store, give it a chance.

Avatar 2 and The Return of Avatar

There will be a sequel to the massively successful Avatar and honestly, is anyone out there surprised? According to inmovies.ca, director James Cameron will be focusing on creating a different environment for viewers:

I'm going to be focusing on the ocean on Pandora, which will be equally rich and diverse and crazy and imaginative, but it just won't be a rain forest.

-Cameron

The article also states that Avatar will be returning to theatres in late summer, likely August 2010, and likely in Imax (no word if it'll be Imax 3D but that's probably a given). So if you want more of the Na'vi and seeing it on blu-ray/dvd isn't enough; you'll get your chance to see it again on the big big screen this summer. No word on the title or projected release date of Avatar 2.

You're All Late For Tea!

Alice in Wonderland (3D) directed by Tim Burton, starring Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway and new comer, Mia Wasikowska.

The Story:

Alice is now 19 years old and on the day of her engagement, stumbles down the rabbit hole and returns to Underland (misheard by Alice and believed to be called Wonderland), a place she had previously visited as a child. She is told by Underland's inhabitants (a collection of weird characters including the White Queen, the Cheshire Cat and of course, the Mad Hatter) that she is the only one who can destroy the Jabberwocky and subsequently end the Red Queen's reign of terror on Underland.

It was determined long before the teaser trailer was released that we would be seeing Alice in Wonderland. It was a no-brainer. With Tim Burton at the helm and Johnny Depp in front of the camera, it was sure to be a fantastic. The strengths of this film were obvious from the start: it's Disney, it's Tim Burton (which in turn results in an always stellar cast), it's 3D and it's an incredible, well-known story. However, there were concerns on whether Burton could create a new story from an already classic one. As we all know, it's hard to change something that people already adore. Burton not only managed to create a new story that worked, he was also able to do so in a way that stayed true to a lot of the elements that made the original story so memorable.

As mentioned before, we are quite hesitant to watch 3D movies unless we can justify that it is actually worth it for the "powers that be" to make the film 3D. For example: a good 3D movie does not just make things seem like they are flying at you because they can, ie Clash of the Titans. A good 3D movie makes you feel like you are on a thrill ride (if that is the angle they are going for) OR it enhances the movie goer's experience with the film by strengthening the image quality and making the film seem more life like. Alice in Wonderland falls in the category of the latter, and did so magnificently.

The scenes were breathtaking - not in an Avatar-Pandora type of way, where the film makers (computers may be a better choice of word here since it is clear that Avatar was basically created on a computer screen and transfered to the movie screen, but I digress...) spent hours depicting the "wonder" and "splendor" that is Pandora. The scenes in Alice were used to enhance the storyline and to make you feel as if you too, had fallen down the rabbit hole.

The movie had it's typical "Burton-esque" feel to it: it was dark, gloomy and of course, eerie. The characters, though hard to change because of their notorioty in our culture, had an odd twist to their personalities. Whether it was Anne Hathaway's "cute but psycho" (as she called it) White Queen or Johnny Depp's extreme multiple personalities as the Mad Hatter. The characters were delightfully odd and intriguing and for the most part, quite comical.

Overall, I would highly recommend watching this film - in 3D would be best, but 2D would suffice.

IMDB here
Rotten Tomatoes here
Official Movie Site here

Clash of the Titans (3D)

Clash of the Titans starring Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Gemma Arterton and directed by Louis Leterrier in 3D.

Due to the previously posted article with Leterrier we wanted to see the 2D version but the only time that worked out was for the 3D showing. On the one hand, I'm glad that we could see the 3D converted movie for ourselves, but on the other hand it really was bad in certain sections. Overall it wasn't terrible but there were distinct moments where the perspective is clearly wrong to the eye. It's particularly noticeable during close-ups of actor's faces, where the face itself is clear but the hair, jawline, and ears seem a little too far away from the face. The only other time I really noticed a flaw was during a scene with a horse where it is pawing/digging at the ground and its front two legs are doubled momentarily. The 3D isn't spectacular and doesn't add much to the movie. Often I found it distracting as the eye will pick up on something that isn't quite right but disappears as quickly as it came. Stick with the 2D unless you're a huge fan of 3D.

For a movie called Clash of the Titans there are surprisingly few titans or gods in the movie so if you're hoping for a real clash of titans, this isn't it. That is not to say that the movie isn't enjoyable, or there aren't some neat god-like powers demonstrated, just that it's more about Perseus (Worthington) and his humanity than anything else. As usual, it seems that Sam Worthington can only perform two faces: angry, and blank. From Terminator Salvation to Avatar to Clash of the Titans, the roles are not exactly demonstrating his range as an actor. Neeson plays Zeus, king of the gods, and Fiennes is Hades, his brother and god of the underworld. The two are feuding over the fate of humanity as some citizens of Greece have decided that they no longer need to honour the gods. Neeson as Zeus is predictable but enjoyable. However, Fiennes as Hades is eerily like his performances in the Harry Potter series as Voldemort. The voice, the mannerisms, the whole "dark lord" bit, it's all there. Maybe the casting of Fiennes isn't so surprising because both the Harry Potter series and Clash of the Titans are Warner Brothers productions.

Overall Clash of the Titans is what you'd expect from a summer blockbuster. It's big on special effects and light on character development. I enjoyed the mythological aspect, but don't look for accuracy in the retellings of the myths (in the film, Zeus, not Prometheus, created humans) or hope for a lot of gods fighting amongst themselves. It is an entertaining movie and the fight scenes are spaced regularly enough that you won't get bored. See it (in 2D), but only if you're in the mood for more-or-less mindless entertainment. If you can't stand summer action movie fluff - skip it.

IMDB here

Rotten Tomatoes here

official movie site here

Tyler Perry: The Mogul Outside the Machine (from CNN)

Came across this article from CNN this afternoon describing the success of director Tyler Perry. His latest Why Did I Get Married, Too? grossed $29 million (US) in America this weekend. It's a shame it's so hard to find a theatre within an hour's drive that will play his movies, I think it's incredibly interesting how a man is making films that are geared towards women and is doing it so well. While he may have that "built-in audience" who will see anything he makes just because his name is on it, that's not as bad as it sounds. Having a loyal following means you can get your next movie made with less risk. And and the more "women's" movies that are made, the more that can be made in the future, perhaps some by women, and be taken seriously. Until then, keep your eye on Tyler Perry, he may surprise you.


CNN article by Breeanna Hare, special to CNN

Warner Brothers 3D not up to snuff? What about Harry?

In an intriguing statement, director Louis Leterrier has stated that he is not satisfied with the 3D conversion Warner Brothers studios applied in post-production to his latest film Clash of the Titans.

Listen, it was not my intention to do it in 3D; it was not my decision to convert it in 3D.

...

Conversions, they all look like this. "Alice in Wonderland" looks like this. Remember the technology was not ready, so it's Warner Brothers saying we are giving you the best of what we can do.

(read the rest of the interview here)

So it is a money-grab on the part of the studio, but that isn't what's bothering me (though it is a disturbing reality in the movie business). It's the thought that Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is going to look just as bad because of the Warner Brothers 3D conversion processes. Not only was HP7 split into two films, likely due in equal parts to the complex plot of the final book and the desire to make as big a profit as possible, but it's going to be converted into 3D. Why is this necessary? I don't understand why the final installment(s) of the series need to be visually different from the previous films. It's a SERIES and as such, should remain consistent throughout. I was completely underwhelmed with the prospect of Deathly Hallows in 3D, and now I'm totally against the idea. According to a director, the technology isn't good enough for conversion (as opposed to filming in 3D with two cameras) without making the movie feel like a Viewmaster image.

For shame, Warner Brothers, for shame. You can ruin other movies but Harry Potter fans will not stand for you detracting from the most anticipated films of the series: the final battle between Harry and Voldemort. I won't be paying to see it in 3D, and neither should you.

I am slowly going crazy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 SWITCH...

Well, it's been a long time since Christine and I have been to the movies...I believe the last movie that we saw in theatres was Alice in Wonderland (which was fantastic - a review of that movie will be posted shortly).

There has been a complete dryspell when it comes to good movies being released. But don't worry: we will be attending movies galore starting within the next few weeks - because the month of May brings the start of BIG SUMMER BLOCKBUSTERS! And of course, whenever there are big blockbusters released - there tends to be a steady flow of good movies released under the radar.

So don't fret - we will be posting more reviews in do time!

Until then....
DANCE MAGIC DANCE! - a classic tune from the musical genius, David Bowie, from one of my all time favourite movies: LABRYNTH!

Avatar (or, who's that snoring?)

We finally broke down and went to see Avatar directed by James Cameron and starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, and 4000 HP servers.

The Good:

The best part of this movie is the visuality. It is truly a feast for the eyes. Vibrant colours and incredible texture give the world of Pandora an exceptional realness and alien-ness while avoiding the artificial feeling that many animated films cultivate. (Here I'm thinking of the cartoonish quality of the Disney/Pixar films.) The animated characters have an incredibly natural feel to their motion and facial expressions. Kudos to the motion-capture team because they truly have raised the bar for further development in the field. The depth-of-field 3D is also very well done and tastefully applied. There are no gratuitous 'things-flying-at-your-face' scenes that so many 3D films include simply because they can. Those sorts of visual gags have their place in action/adventure films but in a "drama" such as Avatar it would be cheesy. Rather, Avatar uses the beautiful jungle of Pandora to create the 3D environment for the viewer. Trees pass on either side and the long branches float over your head. In fact, the 3D is so well done you can almost forget that you're watching a 3D film, if it weren't for those glasses that keep slipping down your nose. So in that respect, Avatar (3D) is a success.

The Bad:

Where to start? I know that sounds harsh but honestly, did anyone find this story compelling? We've all heard the jokes. Fern Gully in space, Pocahontas in space, three hour technical demonstration pretending to be a movie...

First: Jake Sully, the main character and our narrator, has zero back-story. He's in a wheelchair, he says within the first 20 minutes that he's an "ex-marine" and neither of these things are explained in any way. Being in a wheelchair in itself does not require exposition but when it appears to be the reason for the character being an ex-marine, coupled with the fact that he loves using an avatar because he gets the use of "his" legs back, the audience needs to know why it's so important to Jake to use the avatar designed for his twin brother. As long as we're talking about the brother, what was Jake's relationship with him? The audience again has no idea how the brothers felt about each other, it's simply assumed that we'll think "oh they are twins so they must be close"; yet Jake doesn't appear upset as his brother is being cremated. Granted, this could be how a marine, who has presumably seen death before, would react in any situation but without this explanation the whole twin-brother shtick becomes a plot device to get us to the spacey parts as quickly as possible.

Second: There were so many times during this film that I found myself asking "why am I supposed care?" The mineral that humans are mining on Pandora is called Unobtanium, which is a stupid name designed to tell the audience that it's hard to find, but no one tells us why humanity so desperately needs this mineral. It's incredibly valuable, which is probably due to the fact that it's so scarce, but scarcity does not always translate into monetary value. So we, the audience, know that it's rare and it'll cost you a fortune but we don't know what it's used for: that's it. My guess is Unobtanium is used in making metals for military purposes. After all, why would the military be so invested in a private company's mining operation without some sort of tangible return.

Third: Why, oh why did it need to be three hours long? How many times can we be impressed with running through the forest, flying over the forest, climbing through the forest before it gets old? A film that long needs to have a story to back it up, or else it's just a bunch of pretty pictures for hours and hours.

Overall this movie did not impress me. As a demonstration of technical ability it obviously surpasses anything that we've seen to date. But is it worth three hours at $12 to see it? I didn't think so, but I wasn't looking forward to this one in the first place. The thin plot and simplistic political and environmental messages offer nothing to keep the mind entertained as the eyes are dazzled with yet another pretty jungle scene.

Oh, and as for the alternate title for this post, it's because the other person who was with Arlaine and I fell asleep during the movie. No, he didn't snore, but it would have been awesome if he did.

Verdict: Skip it.

Avatar Official Site here

IMDB here

Rotten Tomatoes here

who we are and what we do (part 2)

I'm Arlaine, I'm one half of don't sit next to us and I too, am addicted to film. I love everything about movies. EVERYTHING. I love going to the theatre, the smell of popcorn, the mindless chatter from the people waiting in line with you, the three, four, sometimes five (if you're lucky) previews that come BEFORE the movie begins and of course, there's nothing like hearing that screeching noise that comes right before they start those dreaded commercials!

A few years ago, Christine and I decided to make a "movie list". It started as a "summer movie list" and over the years, has spawned off two sequels: a "fall movie list" and a "winter/spring movie list". As Christine mentioned, we have a certain criteria for movies making The List. In order to get a good feel for a new movie, we need to see a decent trailer. Teaser trailers only work for hyped up movies (ie HARRY POTTER) because we already know we are going to see it; as professional movie-goers, we tend to do our research months in advance. But for a regular movie to make The List, a two minute (at least) trailer must be seen. It is for this reason why we talk during the previews. I like to think of that time as our meeting time.

Sometimes after a first look at a trailer, we need to do further research into the movie's storyline to get a better concept of whether or not we would like to add it to The List. For example, Inglorious Basterds got a free pass through the first set of red tape for The List because it was directed by Quentin Tarantino. However, the shear fact that it was "starring" Brad Pitt (which honestly, is debatable seeing as he wasn't really in the majority of the film), forced us to put the movie on the back burner while we looked deeper into the storyline before we could consider putting it on The List. Needless to say, we liked what we saw (and read) and decided to put it on the Summer Movie List. No regrets there.

Over time, The List has grown into a movie culture; a culture we like to refer to as Movie Club. Yes, just like Fight Club. And like Fight Club, there are a few rules. First rule of Movie Club: You don't talk about Movie Club. Second rule of Movie Club: You DON'T talk about Movie Club. - Okay I could go on with this gag but I choose not to because, unlike some movies (2012) I know when to stop beating a dead horse! However, I must state the most important rule of Movie Club: NO CLAPPING. There's nothing I can't stand more than some idiot clapping at the end of a movie. Especially if that movie was CRAP! Seriously, why do people clap? Nobody on the screen can HEAR you clapping for them! So basically you end up clapping for the projectionist and the theatre staff. (Who do deserve some recognition but not in the form of applause)

But, I digress...

One important thing to note about don't sit next to us: We will not just review new releases that we see in theatre. We will also be reviewing movies released on DVD and the occasional revisited classic. Basically nothing has immunity when it comes to don't sit next to us.

Again, what are we doing here online? Well, we have a passion for film and we want to express our thoughts and insights to anyone who wants to listen. That's where you come in - we have our opinions and strong as they might be, we WANT you to share yours too. So feel free to join in the discussion!

...Look for our first review on Avatar - aka the snoozer of the year.

who we are and what we do

I'm Christine, I'm one-half of don't sit next to us, and I am addicted to film. I love movies. A lot. I love the ritual and excitement of it all: getting your ticket, buying popcorn, finding a seat, hearing the chatter from other viewers as we all await the dimming of the lights...

We like to think of ourselves as professional movie-goers. We know the order of all the questions we'll be asked by the cashiers, we have our cards ready, we know what we're ordering and we know where we'll be sitting. We talk all through the previews to determine which movies will make The List (more on that in a minute), which are drive-in potential, which we'll see at the indy theatre nearby, and which are a definite miss. Hence the title of the blog - you really don't want to be sitting next to us (at least during the previews) and really, we like some buffer seats between us and the next guy or gal. Nothing personal you understand, it's just in case you're a talker, or a texter, or worse - a snorer.

So what makes The List and what gets cut? There aren't any hard and fast rules but there are a few criteria we look for in no particular order:

a) Decent story: I don't care if it's the same drama/comedy/action film that's been done a dozen times before, if you can make me forget that I've seen it already with different stars, chances are I'll give it a go.

b) Intelligence: If the movie looks like it requires you to actually pay attention to the plot and not just look at the pretty actor(s) then it will likely make it.

c) Fantasy: I love a good fantasy film. Give me creatures and magic and I'm happy, most of the time. It's got to be done right and not all about the effects or the actor(s). Think more Stardust and less Clash of the Titans.

d) Humour: Does it actually make me laugh? Is it free from frat-boy humour? If the answers are yes, I'll likely see it.

As I said above these are not "rules" in any way. They're more intuitive than that. When we evaluate a movie the smallest thing can make or break it's position on The List. For example, Inglorious Basterds looked extremely interesting save for one minor detail: Brad Pitt. We can't stand him. Really, it was embarrassing to say the words "one ticket for Inglorious Basterds please" because of the fact that so many other women were going only to gawk at Mr. Pitt. (on a completely unrelated note: that weekend we saw not one but two movies where characters were burned while watching a movie. creepy!)

So what are we doing here online? We just like talking about movies and hope that some of you will join in the discussion.

Coming to a Computer Near You....

Look for the first of many movie blogs this weekend....