Throwback Thursday: Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris, 2011
Director: Woody Allen
Starring: Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams
IMDB
Rotten Tomatoes

Midnight in Paris is a move that I absolutely loved from the first moment I saw it. It is about an American writer, Gil (Wilson), and his fiancée Inez (McAdams) who are visiting Paris with her parents. Gil is a screenwriter and is pretty successful in Hollywood. However his true dream is to write a novel while living in Paris. Inez doesn't understand his nostalgic romanticism for the city and as a result Gil finds himself going for walks alone. One night he's transported back to the 1920s and he meets up with some of his heroes: Cole Porter, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Gertrude Stein, Ernest Hemmingway, and many more.

Gil's novel has a character who wants to open a nostalgia shop; a sort of store for memories of a time and place that one has never visited. This mirrors his own nostalgia for the "golden age" of Paris in the 1920s and at first he's so overwhelmed that he can barely take it all in. As the story progresses, Gil becomes more confident and starts to believe in himself and his dream thanks to the people he's meeting in the past. But this comes with a cost: his relationship with Inez. He's forced to re-evaluate his entire life thanks to his trips to the 1920s.

The story itself isn't too complicated once you get past the time-travel-at-midnight concept and I appreciated the simplicity. Gil just wants someone to read his book and tell him that he's a good writer but is afraid to let anyone read it in case they say he's awful; he is afraid to take the risk. So he stays with what he knows, even though it isn't making him happy. Haven't we all felt that way at one point?

It's hard for me to put into words exactly why I enjoyed Midnight in Paris so much but I think it comes down to atmosphere. The imagery, the historical figures, the costumes, and the music all come together to create a perfectly nostalgic and romantic version of the most romantic city in the world. Speaking of the music, I own the soundtrack and I highly recommend it to anyone who likes to go for quiet walks because most of the music comes from moments where Gil is walking. The music can transport you to your very own version of Paris as you walk through the snow or the rain or the sunshine.

I highly recommend Midnight in Paris to anyone who appreciates a visually beautiful, quiet film with a great soundtrack and Woody Allen humour. Don't let the fact that Owen Wilson is the star put you off because he is fantastic in this movie. He uses his natural excitement and enthusiasm to his advantage and it works so well because Gil is thrilled to be in Paris and Wilson always sounds thrilled about everything when he talks. I promise that by the end of this movie you'll be just as excited as he is to visit the City of Light.

Skyfall: A Sequel, A Prequel, and A Reboot

Skyfall

Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Naomie Harris, Ben Wishaw

Director: Sam Mendes

I am not what you'd call a Bond fan and I'm even less of a Daniel Craig as Bond fan. I was bored with Casino Royale and didn't even bother seeing Quantum of Solace so I was hesitant to see Skyfall because I was expecting more of the same old-same old. Instead I saw a movie so meta it actually reboots a series by being it's own prequel. Mind. Blown. 

Before I go too far I want to warn you that this is not a review of the movie but my thoughts on why Skyfall could be the best Bond movie. (Check out a review of the film here).

Remember: there will be spoilers. 

Sequel

It isn't hard to see how Skyfall is a sequel in the James Bond series. From the opening chase scene to the title sequence complete with theme song to the one-liners to the larger-than-life villain to beautiful women, Skyfall follows the very predictable path of every Bond movie. It's the same characters in the same world with the same objective: save England, save the world, get the girl, and look great doing it (preferably while driving the latest Aston Martin). 

Reboot
You're probably thinking that I'm late to the party on this one because usually it's the first movie with a new actor that signals the rebooting of Bond. Each actor who plays the super-spy brings something new to the role and Craig is no different. He's been a less posh, less refined, and more rough-and-tumble Bond which some people thought was too much of a departure from the classic portrayals. I say that this change is to remove Bond from it's own legacy; much like the Dark Knight trilogy has returned Batman to his more complicated roots, so too has Skyfall returned Bond to his roots. This Bond is stripped of his trademark gadgets and must rely on his wits and his fists to get through. In fact, the only two items that Bond receives from Q branch are a radio and a gun, though it is a special gun that will only fire for him. (Shame he loses it in the first fight in which he tries to actually use it.) I appreciate how the new Q (Wishaw) acknowledges this shift in Bond tradition by asking if we were expecting an exploding pen - which we were, of course, but we don't get it. As he says, Q branch doesn't really go in for that any more.

The Aston Martin is arguably the symbol of the James Bond series and this time the car isn't the state of the art, gadget-filled model we've come to expect. In fact it's an older model more in line with the 60s Bond than  the modern movies. When Bond and M drive away it's the first time we the audience get to hear the classic Bond musical riff - again linking the past with what we're seeing now. We even get to see the famous machine-gun headlights - right before the car is destroyed. Bond drove that car, the symbol of the series, to his childhood home (Skyfall), where the car and the house are both burned beyond recognition thanks to Silva (Bardem). The past, Bond's past, both literally and figuratively, are destroyed for him and for us as the viewer. We all get to start fresh from the ashes of Skyfall and the loss of M (Dench). Her passing suggests a new era for the 00 agents program and therefore for Bond.

Prequel
This brings us to the end of the movie, and the revelation that the Daniel Craig series of Bond movies are, in fact, a prequel to the series that started with Dr. No and Sean Connery. First, Bond is angrier, more physical, less comedic than we've previously seen because he's still maturing into the Bond we've previously seen. We can see this in the scene at the Macau casino where he has just ordered his signature drink and quips "perfect" as he sips. It's as though he's finally found the best way to have a martini and now will only drink one shaken, not stirred.

Secondly, we are only introduced to his long-time flirting partner, Ms. Eve Moneypenny, at the end of the movie, which I believe is a significant choice. We see that this woman is capable of being in the field, fighting, and even firing a shot that could (and at least for a while, did) kill 007 himself. By showing us that Ms. Moneypenny is able to keep up with the Bond we know, her choice to be behind a desk is more interesting because it means that she is choosing a different life, just as James could as well. Yet it opens the door for a more modern Moneypenny who is, and likely will, come out from behind the desk and help out when the plot requires it.

And finally, what is perhaps the greatest moment of the entire series: the final scene with M and James in that iconic office. It's just like the office in which the Bonds of old would receive their brief for the next assignment, down to the tufted leather walls and layout of the furniture. In this moment, we've come full circle and returned to the James Bond of Dr. No.

That's why James Bond had to be from Scotland  - because Sean Connery is Scottish. And if James Bond from Skyfall is a prequel to the Bond of Dr. No, it couldn't have happened any other way.

Trailer Tuesday - Scary Movie 5

Last weekend at the theatre, we were treated to this trailer. I thought it was a joke. But no one was laughing and it turned out to be real.

Check out the trailer for Scary Movie 5 (yes, you read right: FIVE!):

I don't even know where to begin with this one.

Let's start with the casting as I feel it's pretty obvious who is missing from this film. This is the first Scary Movie film to not feature Anna Faris and Regina Hall (Cindy and Brenda) who appeared in the first four films. That should be the first red flag for the production company and now audiences that this film is not going to be good. Though the series hasn't had a good installment since the second film, and even that one wasn't that good!

So let's take a look at who will be in the film: Ashley Tisdale and Simon Rex will star as a married couple who started to experience strange activity when they bring their newborn baby home. And then the parodies begin. Other stars include: Molly Shannon, Heather Locklear, Jerry O'Connell, and Jasmine Guy. All actors that used to be popular and this is the only film they can book nowadays. Then we have cameos from the bottom of the A-List barrel: Charlie Sheen, Lindsay Lohan, and Mike Tyson.

I'm not going to go too much further into this trailer because honestly, it's a waste of time.

If for some reason you are interested in learning more about this crapfest of a film, check out the wikipedia page here.

Oscars 2013

Last night was the big night for the film industry. The 85th Academy Awards were held and numerous actors, films and the ones who helped create them, were honoured.

Let's get one thing out of the way first: the Oscars have their own distinctive criteria for what constitutes a "good" film. Sometimes that coincides with the general public's likes, but most times it does not. Though The Academy has become more accepting of some of the more popular films released over the years, they still generally favour the lesser known, more artistic films in the industry.

Here at Don't Sit Next To Us, we have our own ideas of what are good and bad films. And although we have our favourites for each category, we wanted to give you our reaction to the winners of last night's awards show.

Best Supporting Actor

Winner: Christoph Waltz
Who Should Have Won: Christoph Waltz

It's unusual for a past winner, who has recently picked up the same award less than five years prior, to walk away the winner again. Especially when the category is made up of well-deserving actors. However, Christoph Waltz struck gold once again with the role of Dr. King Schultz in Quentin Tarantino's masterpiece, Django Unchained. He has seemed to find his lucky charm in Tarantino, previously winning the Oscar for his role in Inglorious Basterds. Like that role, Waltz took a supporting character and somehow made them the most captivating part of the film without over-taking the entire story.

Arlaine

Check out our review for Django Unchained here.


Best Supporting Actress

Winner: Anne Hathaway
Who Should Have Won: Sally Field

From the announcement of the nominees, it was clear that Anne Hathaway would be crowned the winner in this category. Her performance as the destitute and desperate Fantine in Les Miserables was heartbreaking and heartwarming all at the same time. Add in the fact that she had to sing live during filming and you have a recipe for an Oscar win. It was a great performance, but we felt that it wasn't deserving of the award; at least not this year.

Sally Field, who was nominated for her portrayal of Mary Todd Lincoln in Lincoln, was utterly breathtaking. She was strong, yet fragile. Dominate, yet shy. She held her own against the incomparable Daniel Day-Lewis and helped carry a film that was centered around the president. Like The King's Speech, Lincoln featured scenes with only the actors demonstrating their abilities, and Field did this in spades.

Arlaine

Check out our review of Les Miserables here and the Lincoln review here.

Best Actress

Winner: Jennifer Lawrence
Who Should Have Won: Jennifer Lawrence and Jessica Chastain

This one was really only ever between Lawrence and Jessica Chastain, in my opinion. With both the oldest and the youngest ever nominees in the category competing in the same year, it seems to me they were being honoured through the nominations rather than with a real shot at the award. Jessica Chastain gave an incredible performance in Zero Dark Thirty as Maya, the American federal agent who devoted herself to finding Bin Laden but as Americans I imagine that the voting Academy had a much different relationship to this movie than we did here at Don't Sit Next to Us. Lawrence's somewhat unusual romantic role of Tiffany Silver Linings Playbook is a much safer option for the Academy to single out as the winner. And did she ever deserve it - I know I was taken by surprise at just how connected I felt to the characters in this movie.

Christine

Check out our review of Silver Linings Playbook here and stay tuned for our Zero Dark Thirty review.

Best Actor

Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis
Who Should Have Won: Daniel Day-Lewis

We called the winner back in our review of Lincoln and we weren't alone. Daniel Day-Lewis has made history with his third win for Best Actor and we believe he's earned it. Having seen four of the five films from which this year's nominees were drawn I think we can safely say that while Day-Lewis took home the award, Denzel Washington and Bradley Cooper gave fabulous performances but weren't likely winners. (The Master, with Joaquin Phoenix, was not released in theatres in our area so I can only trust the Academy nominators recognized an excellent performance from him as well). Both Washington's character in Flight and Cooper's character in Silver Linings Playbook were the flawed anti-hero who has to deal with unwanted fame and attention. Yet Day-Lewis' portrayal of President Lincoln presented audiences with a man who was trying to achieve greatness for his country by reuniting it, stopping the war, and fighting for equality. In comparison with Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln is a positively cheerful feel-good movie and Day-Lewis' performance was one that Academy voters and audiences could support.

Christine

Best Director

Winner: Ang Lee (Life of Pi)
Who Should Have Won: Steven Spielberg (Lincoln)

I don't get it. I really don't. It's like James Cameron being nominated best director for Avatar. Sure, it's amazing and beautiful what Ang Lee helped create with Life of Pi. But can you really compare to the work Steven Spielberg did with Lincoln? Or to be honest, any of the other directors nominated? But perhaps the Academy is making up for snubbing Cameron in the same category in 2010. (Kathryn Bigelow took home the award for directing The Hurt Locker). Though the majority of the praise for Lincoln was given to its actors, the work that Spielberg put into this film should not go unnoticed. In development since the early 2000s, Lincoln has been without a doubt, the best film that Spielberg has put out in almost 10 years. That being said, Spielberg has a long list of work that should have helped sway the Academy in his direction. But sometimes the Academy just gets it wrong and there's not much we can do about it.

Arlaine

Best Picture

Winner: Argo
Who Should Have: Argo

He wasn't nominated for the directing category. We've all heard the jokes. But Ben Affleck did get to take home the award for Best Picture which is arguably the biggest award of the night.This was a tough category, and one that could not have been more diverse. Each film on the list was outstanding in it's own way. This was one of our most successful years here at Don't Sit Next To Us in terms of being able to see the majority of the films nominated in this category (six out of nine) and we enjoyed every one we saw. What made Argo stand out just a little bit ahead of the others was it's simplicity. It didn't have to rely on CGI to create its background and characters. It didn't have to have an elaborate script. It didn't have to be based on a historic character. It was a good story about something that really happened but wasn't overdone or told. I think it also had a "wow" factor in the sense that the majority of audiences probably did not expect the film to be as good as it was. As well, Affleck starring in the film was a risk but it paid off as he was pretty decent in the role. (He's not critically successful with the majority of his acting roles - and let's please remember that he is an Academy Award winner...FOR WRITING! - Good Will Hunting).

This isn't Affleck's first great turn at directing (Gone Baby Gone and the The Town were fantastic) and it won`t be his last.

Arlaine

Did you watch the Oscars this year?

What were your thoughts on the night's big winners? 

Throwback Thursday What's Eating Gilbert Grape

What's Eating Gilbert Grape
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Starring: Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Juilette Lewis
Released: 1993
Box Office Gross: $9,170,214 (USA)
Throwback Review

After watching director Lasse Hallstrom's latest work (Safe Haven - check out a review by Don't Sit Next To Us here) I wanted a refresher on his previous good work. And with that criteria in mind, I came across What's Eating Gilbert Grape.

The film stars Depp as the title character, who lives in a small town in Iowa with his family including two sisters, a mentally challenged younger brother, Arnie (DiCaprio) and a morbidly obese mother, Bonnie. Gilbert's father committed suicide several years earlier, leaving the family in a less than ideal financial situation and Bonnie battling depression and unable to care for herself or the family. Gilbert has taken responsibility of Arnie and fixing the family's farmhouse all while working at the local grocery store.

Adding to Gilbert's woes are his secret love affair with a housewife (Mary Steenburgen) and a new supermarket chain that has opened in the small town, that threatens to make all the local businesses, including the grocery store where Gilbert works, redundant. A young woman named Becky (Lewis) and her grandmother get stranded in town when their truck and trailer break down. Becky quickly becomes close with both Arnie and Gilbert, eventually engaging in a romance with the older Grape brother.

Gilbert struggles to embrace a private life while dealing with his family's overbearing needs.

What's Eating Gilbert Grape is a character film at its finest. You get two for the price of one with this film: a performance by Depp that solidifies his status as an A-list actor and a star-making performance by a young, relatively unknown DiCaprio. And surrounding these two strong performances is a supporting cast that holds their own as the dysfunctional family and townspeople in Gilbert's life.

Depp manages to easily command and steer the film with his meek and endearing performance as the lead character. This is the Depp that we need to see to be reminded that he is an actor with some serious talent. There's not much in terms of plot line for Depp to work with, but there is tones of character development and he takes all that he can of the troubled Gilbert and runs with it. Not many actors these days could deal with this amount of character development and still turn out a critically acclaimed performance.

Speaking of critically acclaimed performances, the role of Arnie Grape gave DiCaprio his first Oscar nomination (Best Actor in a Supporting Role). As the mentally challenged young Grape brother, DiCaprio shone brightly in this film. It was no easy part, and DiCaprio sure made it look effortless. He took you on an emotional rollercoaster with this role: at one point you're smiling and laughing with Arnie as he's playing with his siblings, the next you're crying alongside him when he's being reprimanded by Gilbert. His dedication to the character paid off in spades; he began receiving lead roles soon after this film was released and soon Leo-mania was upon us.

Final Verdict: See it. A must in my opinion. Although the plot is fairly predictable, the performances more than make up for it. It's amazing to see the chemistry between Depp and DiCaprio and it makes me wonder if there is a film that could handle this pairing again. We can only hope someone will be brave enough to tackle that feat. (Burton, Scorcese...Tarantino??? I'm looking at you!)

Rotten Tomatoes

Safe Haven Or Sleeping With The Enemy: The Remake

Safe Haven
Director: Lasse Hallstrom
Starring: Josh Duhamel, Julianne Hough, and Colbie Smulders
New Release Review

Last Thursday was Valentine's Day so what does that mean for the film industry? It's time to adapt another Nicholas Sparks novel! This year that adaptation was Safe Haven. *Side note: this was the best way to spend Gal-entine's Day with some excellent company - thanks girls!*

In this latest Sparks adaptation, the focus is on a young woman named Katie (Hough) who has escaped her troubled past to wind up in a small North Carolina town where she meets Alex (Duhamel), the manager of the local general store. At first Katie is guarded, refusing to allow any one to get to know her. She slowly opens up to her neighbour Jo (Smulders) and eventually Alex who is a widow with two children. As Katie starts to put roots down in the small town and begin a romantic relationship with Alex, her past catches up with her.

Not much to this predictable love story. We've seen this story time and time again (most notably, this film resembles Julia Robert's 1991 film, Sleeping With the Enemy) and unfortunately, not much has changed in this version. Director Lasse Hallstrom (who has directed critically acclaimed films What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Cider House Rules, and most recently Salmon Fishing in the Yemen), takes on his second Sparks' film (the first being Dear John). Not much different from his previous work with Sparks. Still as pleasantly appealing, visually, however, with the smart choice of not telling the audience the whole truth behind Katie's past. This leaves the audience guessing a little and allows the film to not be a "one-trick pony". It's not a lot of thinking, but it's thinking nonetheless.

The story is your typical Sparks' romance, where two strangers, (who seem destined to be together) meet and fall in love. Something happens in their pasts that stop them from living happily ever after right away (whether it's a death, illness, bad previous relationship, etc.), but they end up together in the end. No spoilers here - just plain, predictable storylines.

There was a slight twist in this film that is a little different from Sparks' previous film adaptations and I guess that was a nice change. But again, it was predictable.

Hough was all right in her first non-singing/dancing role. She was likable as the troubled Katie and had a decent amount of chemistry with Duhamel. The only issue I had with her performance was the lack of emotional depth. The tears, anguish and heartache you would expect from a character such as hers, was not there.

Duhamel was fine. And by fine I mean FINE! But all jokes aside, he was okay in this role. Not much to work with in terms of showing acting range. He was believable as the small town father of two. And he definitely appeals to the female audience. All in all, a great casting choice.

Final Verdict: Skip it. If you are in the mood for a good romance film from Nicholas Sparks, check out The Notebook or A Walk to Remember. Not his finest story, and not the greatest film, it accomplishes exactly what it sets out to be - a romance film to appeal to the masses on Valentine's Day. It was a light (in terms of story depth), cheesy, romantic, pretty film. It put a smile on my face (mainly from the two young actors who played the children of Duhamel's character) and it made me want to go to North Carolina. Not worth running to the theatre to see. 

Rotten Tomatoes

Trailer Tuesday - The Great Gatsby

The newest trailer for this summer's sure-to-be-blockbuster The Great Gatsby has made me want to see this film even more than I did before (if that was even possible). Check it out and see what I mean:

WOW! What a beautifully made trailer! Even if you weren't interested in this film before, you can't deny that this trailer makes you more intrigued with the film.

The first trailer gave us a mere glimpse of what director Baz Luhrmann has in store for us this May. The newest trailer shows us that he is pulling out all the stops to bring the classic tale of the mysterious millionaire Jay Gatsby to the big screen. We've already seen what he can do with a classic tale (William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet) and a story of his own creation (Moulin Rouge!) so it's safe to say we are in for quite the ride with Luhrmann's latest work.

The trailer depicts a bright and colourful world where the wealthy live a glamourous life but have some serious secrets to bare. The film takes place during the roaring 20s so the costumes, props and sets are going to be spectacular. And what this trailer solidifies for the audience is that the soundtrack is going to be fantastic. It's a 3D movie that really shouldn't be one but I actually can't wait to see it in this format.

Luhrmann has a very unique way of telling a story through film. And one of the tools he uses to tell his story is through music. Like fellow director Quentin Tarantino, Luhrmann ensures that each song used in his films help to set the tone of the story and aid to the overall depiction of each scene. In this trailer, like the one before it, we are treated to several great song choices: "No Church in the Wild" by Jay Z, Kanye West and Frank Ocean, "Bedroom Hymns" by Florence and the Machine, and the eerie rendition of "So Happy Together" by Filter. This cover of a light, happy song, by Filter is the perfect fit for this trailer and I hope it is setting up for the tone of the film. It is quite possibly the best song choice for a trailer I have seen lately (just narrowly beating Jay Z's Brooklyn We Go Hard used in the trailer for 42 - check out that trailer review here).

For those of you who question Luhrmann's song choices for the upcoming Gatsby, let me remind you of his two films that were mentioned earlier in this post. Luhrmann has a knack for incorporating modern music into his films that generally take place in a time before the songs (or even their genres) were created. Trust his instincts as they are usually bang on. And if you need further proof, check out this clip from Moulin Rouge!:

The Great Gatsby, pushed back from it's original December 2012 release, is set to hit the big screen on May 10, 2013.

For more information on the film, check out the wikipedia page or the film's official page.

Here Comes The Boom OR Why Can't We Be Friends?

Here Comes The Boom
Director: Frank Coraci
Starring: Kevin James, Salma Hayek, and Henry Winkler
Box Office Gross: $45,193,961 (USA)
DVD Review

Another year, another Happy Madison production. After last year's stinker That's My Boy, there was no where to go but up for this production company - named after Adam Sandler's two most successful films Happy Gilmore and Billy Madison. Unfortunately, we didn't quite get there with Here Comes the Boom.

James stars as Scott Voss, a 42-year-old biology teacher who has become jaded and bored in his career. Budget cutbacks at his school have forced the school to cancel the music program, leading to Marty (Winkler) being laid off. Voss, angered by this decision, takes it upon himself to help raise the necessary funds to keep the music program and his friend's job. He struggles to find ways to raise the money and takes a part time job as a night instructor for a citizenship class. Niko (Bas Rutten) a student in the class, recruit's his help to for outside tutoring and Voss quickly discovers that Niko was a former mixed martial arts (MMA) fighter. He learns that even the loser in the fight wins a substantial amount of money, which gives him the idea of becoming a MMA fighter himself.

If this plot sounds familiar, there's a reason why: it's the exact premise of Sandler's film, Happy Gilmore. Just like in the 1996 film, the main character tries to raise money to save someone who is in dire need. In order to raise that money, they must partake in a sport that they have never participated in before but conveniently have an athletic background that gives them a competitive edge on their opponents. Though there are many similarities with these two films, there is one major difference: Here Comes the Boom was not nearly as funny as Happy Gilmore.

It's disappointing that this film lacked any of the comedic punch previous Happy Madison films had. This film had all the right ingredients: good cast, decent premise, and a great fish-out-of-water premise. However the writing just wasn't there. James was decent as the main character; he had a few bright moments but nothing that made him shine. He has proven in numerous roles (The King of Queens, Grown Ups, Paul Blart: Mall Cop) that he has the comedic presence to carry a film. And to write a story (he wrote Paul Blart and various King of Queens episodes). Unfortunately this one turned out to be a dud. There were a few "ha-ha" moments, but only a few.

The supporting cast was okay - but again, they didn't have much to work with so it's not fair to criticize their work in this film. Winkler delivered a convincing performance as the down-on-his-luck music teacher, Marty. He provided a good chunk of the light humour in this film with his shy, dim-witted approach to every situation his character was involved in.

Unlike previous Happy Madison films, this movie did not have a stellar soundtrack. The song choices were weak, save Neil Diamond's "Holly Holy" that was used both as the original and a remix featuring Ultralove.

Final Verdict: Skip it. Nothing about this film makes it stand out amongst a sea of other great comedies. It wasn't bad - but it wasn't good either. A decent film to watch if you're in the mood for something extremely light but don't expect it to have to you falling down in a fit of laughter. Here's hoping with his next film, James can really bring the "Boom".

(Kevin James' next film will be this summer's Grown Ups 2 which will once again pair him with Sandler, Chris Rock, David Spade, and Steve Buscemi as well as be produced by Happy Madison).

Rotten Tomatoes

PS: The title of this post comes from The Simpsons episode where Homer becomes a boxer after it is discovered that he doesn't feel pain when he is punched in the face. Check out the clip I am referencing here:

Throwback Thursday - Dirty Dancing

Since this week's Throwback Thursday is Valentine's Day, I thought we should have a review of a classic romance film. So here's my favourite film from the romance genre (and one of my all time favourite films), Dirty Dancing.

Dirty Dancing
Director: Emile Ardolino
Starring: Patrick Swayze, Jennifer Grey, and Jerry Orbach
Released: 1987
Box Office Gross: $63,892,689 (USA)
Throwback Review

"Nobody puts Baby in a corner" - the most quotable line from this film and arguably one of the most quoted lines from a film (as it's been used in numerous forms of pop culture including songs, television shows, and movies). Though it's the first thing most people remember about the movie, there's so much more to this low-budget 80s flick.

It's the summer of 1963 and Frances "Baby" Houseman (Grey) is vacationing with her wealthy family at Kellerman's, a summer resort. The well-intentioned Baby (who was named after Frances Perkins, the first woman in the US Cabinet) is about to attend college with plans of one day joining the Peace Corps. She develops a crush on Johnny Castle (Swayze) after seeing him at one of the staff's secret after-hours parties partaking in "dirty dancing". She is enthralled by the culture that these less-fortunate workers have created and quickly finds herself involved in their lives.

Baby learns that Johnny's dance partner, Penny (Cynthia Rhodes), is pregnant and is desperate to get an abortion but can't afford it. Baby gets the money from her father Dr. Jake Houseman (Orbach) - who is unaware of the intent for this money - to pay for Penny's illegal abortion. Baby also becomes Penny's substitute dancer as they (Penny and Johnny) need to participate in a showcase at the Sheldrake, a nearby resort, in order to receive their summer bonus. Johnny must train Baby to learn the required routine and the two begin to spend a lot of time together. Emotions run strong between the pair as they learn to understand the differences in each others lives and to work together.

In a sense, this film is not only a love story, it's also a coming of age story about a teenage girl learning to become her own woman. Grey was perfectly cast in the role of the demure yet strong-willed Baby. The chemistry between her and Swayze was phenomenal. They shined as dancing partners as well as love interests. Swayze's significant background in dance helped him secure this role and it has become one of his most recognizable characters.

The story has been done time and time again. But there was something magical about this film that has made it one of the most successful films from the 80s. It was a low-budget film that turned out to be a box office hit. It was the first film to sell more than a million copies on home video (remember those?), it was the number one rented video in 1988, and it spawned two multi-platinum soundtracks ((I've Had) The Time of my Life won a Golden Globe and Academy Award for Best Original Song in 1988).

Everything about this movie works: from the acting (the actors did a lot with a cheesy plot), the music, the dancing - everything was wonderful. It's the type of film that appeals to people of all ages and is a timeless classic. It is one of those films that when you see it on TV, you can't help but watch it even though you've seen it numerous times.

Final Verdict: See it. If you haven't already (not many people haven't seen this film) you are definitely missing out on one of the biggest cult classics in pop culture history. It's been over 25 years and the film is still a favourite amongst audiences. There are talks of a remake, but that has recently been put on the back-burner (hopefully it stays there). Some movies should never been revisited or remade (hello - Dirty Dancing: Havana Nights I'm talking to you!).

Meeting Evil AKA Meeting Crap

Meeting Evil
Director: Chris Fisher
Starring: Samuel L. Jackson, Luke Wilson, and Leslie Bibb
Box Office: - no accurate stats available
DVD Review

Wow. I'm finding it hard to describe my exact feelings on this film. It was that mind-blowing. But if you didn't guess already by the title of this review, you should know that it wasn't mind-blowing in a good way.

Meeting Evil is a strange film. Right from the beginning, you're unsure of the tone that director Fisher was going for. I think he was trying to go for a Donnie Darko type tone, but never quite gets there.

The film takes place in an unknown southern state where John Felton (Wilson) lives with his wife Joanie (Bibb) and their two kids. John has just been fired from his real estate job and returns home to find a foreclosure notice on his door. He is irate and takes his anger out on his family who have surprised him with cake for his birthday. Joanie takes the kids to the local park to give John his space.

Someone knocks on the front door and John answers it to find a man calling himself Richie (Jackson). Richie's car broke down and he needs a push. John pushes the car while Richie steers, rigging the car to backfire, which injures John's knee. The audience is shown Richie's ulterior motives: he is trying to kill John. (This is shown when Richie pulls a gun out on an unsuspecting John, but is hindered when a little girl is shown watching him).

The film continues on a weird journey with John and Richie going from one crazy situation to the next; each time with Richie taking matters to the extreme. You never quite know what is going on and you never truly find out. Which I guess was the point the writers were going for, but the writing was not good enough to accomplish this feat.

I hated this film. Hated it. I usually love films that Jackson is in. This one stunk. There was a reason why this film went straight to DVD: it was a geunine mistake that should never have been filmed. Everything was bad about the film: the music, the writing, the acting. Even decent actors Jackson and Wilson couldn't bring any life to this dull and awkward film.

Final Verdict: Skip it. It's not the first time Jackson has done a crappy movie and sadly, it won't be the last.  Meeting Evil - a clever, to the point title about a movie that never quite seems to develop into anything more than a mindless thriller with over-the-top acting and underwhelming plot points.

Rotten Tomatoes

Trailer Tuesday - Fast and Furious 6

It's finally here! Yes I've been waiting for this trailer ever since they announced there would be a sixth installment in the franchise! And now I am as giddy as a school girl over the anticipation of seeing it on the big screen!

Check out the trailer for Fast and Furious 6:

I am the first to admit that I never expected this series to reach a sixth installment. To be honest, I was shocked it made it past the third. But man am I happy it did!

The fourth film totally rejuvenated the franchise and the fifth changed the game. The franchise that was once about illegal street racing has now successfully transitioned to a "heist" theme. Now we get to see Dom (Vin Diesel) and his gang team up to take down bad guys instead of racing against each other for pink slips. This turn of events means more action and bigger car racing/chasing scenes.

The best part about this trailer is that we are guaranteed to see every big character that has been in the franchise (save Lucas Black's character Sean from the third film as his film doesn't happen until after these recent installments chronologically in the Fast and Furious timeline). And Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) is back!! It will be interesting to see how the "OMG" moment from the last film is carried out.

Even if you're not a fan of the franchise, you can't deny that the release of this film will definitely guarantee big box office results. And there's no doubt that it is a great way to kick off the summer of big blockbuster films.

Check out the film's official page and the Wikipedia page for more information.

Warm Bodies or Dial "Z" for Zombies

Warm Bodies
Director: Jonathan Levine
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, and John Malkovich
New Release Review

First, I must be completely honest: I wasn't interested in seeing this film in theatre. I saw the trailer a couple of times and it just didn't resonate with me. I appreciated the idea of the film but was not nearly impressed enough to add it to the movie list. I saw the film on a fluke (the film I wanted to see was sold out) so from the beginning I was indifferent on the film and the situation.

Warm Bodies is a post-apocalyptic love story with a twist: the couple at the forefront of the story is an extreme case of "star-crossed" lovers, with one half of the couple being a zombie. Meet "R" - a zombie who is different from the rest of his undead kind. He has thoughts - which uniquely narrate this film. He longs for something more than the life of a zombie, wondering what life used to be like and how people used to connect with each other. Now, his life consists of moaning, stumbling around, occassionally sharing moans with his "best friend" M which somewhat resembles a human relationship, and on top of everything - craving human flesh and brains. Feeding on brains gives "R" a chance to "feel alive" as it allows him to absorb the memories of the human. On a routine attack, "R" sees Julie (Palmer) for the first time and instantly falls in love with her (though he doesn't understand how to act and deal with these new feelings). "R" kills Julie's boyfriend and feasts on his brains, absorbing his memories of Julie, making his feelings for her stronger. He rescues Julie from the rest of the pack of zombies and takes her back to his home to keep her safe. There, the two get to know each other, while "R" begins to slowly change and become more "alive" through his feelings for Julie.

Yes, this story does sound a little ridiculous, doesn't it? But here's the thing - it was better than expected. I went in thinking that it was going to be another one of the many irritating teen-supernatural type films that have come out in the past few years. But I was pleasantly surprised. It was light (with the ocassional dark moment, but that can't be avoided as it is a movie about undead creatures killing humans) and it was funny. Not laugh-out-loud funny. More chuckle-and-make-you-smile funny.

It was fairly clever - a nice twist on a (excuse the pun) beaten to death concept of zombies. We are most often shown a darker, more intense storyline when dealing with the zombie subject (save Shaun of the Dead and arguably the Dawn of the Dead remake). It was nice to see a different take on the zombie genre.It had a over-arching, Romeo & Juliet type vibe, and it worked. Don't get me wrong; it was corny. But it worked.

My only negatives were the underdeveloped "Bonies" who looked more cartoonish than scary and the lack of Malkovich. He was definitely underused but in this type of film, any more use of Malkovich would most likely deteer from the tone of the film. Though he was alotted one great moment to showcase his chops, even if it was brief. I wouldn't want to piss him off!

Final Verdict: See it. Based on the novel by Isaac Marian and directed by Levine (50/50), Warm Bodies isn't perfect but it doesn't need to be. It's got charm, laughs and a refreshing take on a overused topic.

Rotten Tomatoes

PS the title of this post comes from a classic Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episode where the Simpsons family faces off against zombies. Check out this clip here:

Lincoln

Director: Steven Spielberg
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, and Tommy Lee Jones
New Release Review

It feels a little strange to be calling this a new release review when Lincoln has been out for months but it is a new-to-us release. Around here, we don't always get the arty, serious, historical, or just plain good movies until there is some serious buzz about them. However, thanks to the Academy Awards, there is usually a surge of great movies to see in January and February as our theatres finally realize that people will see a historical drama if it's, you know, playing in our city. I have friends who actually went to another country (USA) to see Lincoln because it just wasn't playing anywhere else nearby. But I digress. On to the review...

Lincoln follows the story of President Abraham Lincoln (Day-Lewis) as he enters his second term of office. The Civil War is still threatening to tear the country apart and President Lincoln is struggling with Congress to have his extremely divisive and controversial 13th Amendment to the Constitution passed, therefore outlawing slavery. At it's core Lincoln is a political drama; there are few scenes of fighting, gore, or battle. The characters make impassioned speeches to one another about the strategy each side must employ to achieve their goals.

And there is no shortage of drama within the Lincoln family, either. Mary (Todd) Lincoln is played to spectacular perfection by Sally Field. Mary has lost her yet another son to disease and the movie shows her as a mother who is still very much grieving one year after his death. Yet Mary continues to fulfil her duties as First Lady through what would today likely be classified as migraines and mental illness. Field isn't in the movie much and at first I wondered why she was given a nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Not because I doubt the talent of Sally Field but she just didn't have much to do as Mrs. Lincoln. And then a scene where Abraham and Mary have an argument completely blew me away. It isn't a spoiler to say that their relationship was at times rocky (possibly due to the mental illness(es) from which she suffered?) and this scene has Mary literally flop down on the floor in frustration with what she sees as her husband's indifference to the recent death of their son. It's truly amazing to watch as each speaks over the other without resorting to screaming melodrama. And as Arlaine said, "who else could go toe-to-toe with Daniel Day-Lewis?" Well done, Sally.

Spielberg did a great job of creating tension and suspense on the day of the congressional vote on the 13th amendment. Of course we all know how it turns out yet I was still captivated as each Congressman was called to state his vote. It was a reminder of how deeply divided the country was and how close Lincoln's attempt at stopping slavery while obtaining a lasting peace came to failure.

I do have a slight problem with how Speilberg chose to end the movie. If you'd rather not read about the final scenes then stop here.

Verdict: See it. Daniel Day-Lewis is a lock for Best Actor and you won't be disappointed by his performance.

***Slight Spoilers Ahead***
A few weeks after the amendment has passed we join Lincoln and his cabinet as they're discussing the next steps for the government. The president seems excited about the possibilities that lie before his country and how he can make America better for all its citizens, not just a wealthy few. The butler arrives to remind Mr. Lincoln that Mrs. Lincoln is waiting in the carriage and that if he doesn't hurry they will be late for the theatre. Mr. Lincoln then tells his cabinet " I have to go, but I'd rather stay" and he then walks quietly down the hall wearing his iconic top hat and black suit.

I would have loved for the movie to end there. We know what happens that night at the theatre. We know how the story ends. But seeing him live at the end of it would have made his death that much more poignant and real to modern audiences. I felt more sadness watching Lincoln walk to his death than I did when the doctor actually pronounces him dead. Granted, Spielberg did make a great choice in not showing the actual assassination but rather the reaction and aftermath from the point of view of his youngest son who is attending another play that same evening. Yet even that felt a little unnecessary to me. And the strange effect with the voiceover that dissolves from the candle flame to the memory of a public speech where Lincoln calls for peace and equality felt too much like an attempt to make the movie relate to the wars of today.

Sometimes it's the things that are left unsaid that have the most impact and I wish Spielberg had let Lincoln have the last word as a man rather than as a political icon. After all, we'd just spent 3 hours getting to know that man. Let us mourn him without the cliché.

Throwback Thursday - Charlie's Angels

Charlie's Angels
Director: McG
Starring: Drew Barrymore, Carmen Diaz, and Lucy Liu
Released: 2000
Box Office Gross: $124, 400, 000 (USA)
Throwback Review

Before the Super Bowl started on Sunday, I was flipping through the TV channels and came across Charlie's Angels and decided to watch it. My dad joined me and we shared a few laughs while enjoying this action-comedy from 2000.

For those of you who don't know, Charlie's Angels was a film based on the television series from the 70s of the same name. John Forsythe, who voiced the faceless Charlie in the original series, returned to the role in this film.

Three "Angels" Natalie (Diaz), Dylan (Barrymore), and Alex (Liu), are individually talented, tough and attractive women who work as special agents for an unseen millionaire named Charlie (Forsythe). Charlie communicates through a speaker to the Angels and his assistant, Bosley (Bill Murray) who works with them directly.

The Angels are assigned to retrieve recently kidnapped Eric Knox (Sam Rockwell), a software genius who has created a revolutionary voice-recognition software that can pinpoint a person`s location by voice. Knox is believed to be kidnapped by the head of a communications satellite company called Redstar (Tim Curry) and a man simply known as the Thin Man (Crispin Glover). The Angels must take on these suspects and also infiltrate the company in order to determine who was behind Knox`s kidnapping and what their intentions are with regards to the voice-recognition software.

This film does not incorporate the most original story, but it accomplishes exactly what it should: it`s an action-comedy about females who can kick butt. And while they`re kicking butt, they`re being beautiful and making you laugh. What more can you ask for from a film of this nature? If you`re asking for more, you shouldn`t be watching this film! 

Barrymore, Diaz and Liu were the perfect choices to play the Angels in this film. They are likeable, attractive and funny actress who are somewhat believable as special agents who can seemingly do it all. They look to be really enjoying being in this film and playing these characters which definitely helps with their portrayals. The supporting cast is phenomenal (Rockwell, Murray, Glover and Curry) and they are able to play their roles so well, without overshadowing the three female leads (who the film wants the audience to focus on). 

With McG behind the camera, the film showcases plenty of action and some really well-choregraphed fight scenes. Add in a great soundtrack and you have some high-energetic, entertaining scenes. 

Final Verdict: See it. It`s fun and very entertaining. You`ll laugh and you`ll definitely shake your head at some of the antics these Angels get away with. But you will smile when you`re doing it. Take it for what it is and you`ll enjoy it.

Rotten Tomatoes

Stolen AKA Stole-Crap

Stolen

Director: Simon West

Starring:  Nicolas Cage, Malin Akerman, and Josh Lucas

Box Office: $2,106,557 (Worldwide)

DVD Review

Stolen was released in 2012. Yes, it was released in theatres in September 2012. And it was released on DVD in January 2013. That's a dismal five months between theatrical and DVD release. That should tell you right off the bat that this is not a good film.

Nicolas Cage has been staring in a string of crap-tastic movies, yet again. As mentioned previously, we believe Cage does one good film in about 10. Add a plus-1 to the bad column for this stinker.

Stolen sees Cage as a recently (as in the movie takes place on the day he is released) released ex-bank robber who wants to reconnect with his estranged teenage daughter. He was sent to prison eight years prior after a botched bank robbery where he took the rap, allowing his team to go free. Former team member Vincent (Josh Lucas), who many believed to have died several years before, resurfaces to exact revenge on Will (Cage). He blames Will for all of his life struggles and expects to receive the $10 million dollars they had stolen from the bank eight years ago. Vincent kidnaps Will's daughter and the only way that Will can rescue her is by robbing another bank, all while being watched by the detective (Danny Huston) who arrested him tries to track him down again and catch him with the missing $10 million.

If this plot sounds familiar, that's because it is! We have seen it before and not surprisingly, it was from Cage! (Gone in 60 Seconds). A very similar storyline; instead of car theft it's bank robberies! It's like Gone in 60 Seconds meets Taken meets Con Air meets Speed meets Italian Job. Seems like the makers of this film just recycled concepts from these previous films and made one spectacular piece of crap.

The film sees Cage pair up with Simon West, who he had previously worked with on Con Air. With this pairing, you'd think that the film would be a decent action film as West has some serious action-genre-movie-clout behind his name (Con Air, The Mechanic, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider and most recently The Expendables 2). But alas, we were presented with this steaming festering turd. (Sorry for the graphic-ness of that sentence but I am very irate with the outcome of this film). The acting was horrific. The story was even worst. I don't think anything could have saved this film.

Lucas was barely recognizable as the psychotic degenerate Vincent. But it was more laughable than menacing. Not a very good depiction of a villain. especially for an action film when the bad guy is supposed to be intimidating. Malin Akerman was underused. She's a decent supporting actress and was not given nearly enough in this role. And Huston, he might as well not have been in the film. His character was very basic. No meat to it and therefore nothing for him to work with.

Though I did appreciate the simplicity and shortness of the film (as it's always good to get right into the action and not drag out the story in the end) it was a double-edged sword: it also hindered the follow-through of the story and left the audience wondering "what is this film really trying to accomplish"?

There was something "off" in this film. Was it the filming, the music, the acting? It had a European action film type feel to it but had none of the appeal. The use of CCR as the theme music for Cage's character's bank heists almost won me over but even John Fogerty couldn't persuade me to enjoy this film. The story was ridiculous, the characters sluggish and the entire film was a waste of time.

Final Verdict: Skip it. There's a reason why no one heard of this film when it was released. It was too similar to Cage's previous films (he bought a teddy bear upon his release from prison in this film - hello!! He had a stuffed bunny rabbit for his daughter in Con Air!) but lacked all of the gusto these films had. It was very subpar, one of Cage's worst (and he's had a lot of bad ones so that should say something!). Here's hoping

Rotten Tomatoes

Trailer Tuesday - 42

This week's edition of Trailer Tuesday features a baseball movie! Yay! I first saw this trailer in September, strategically placed amongst the trailers previewed before Trouble With the Curve.

Check out the trailer for the upcoming biopic, 42:

I have seen this trailer twice more since that first night in September and it still looks awesome! Yes, I may be a little biased as I love baseball films (as most of you probably already know from my post last summer about my Top 10 Baseball Films) but you can't deny the impact a film like this will have on the world.

The film is a biopic of the baseball star Jackie Robinson, who was the first black player in the MLB. Written and directed by Brian Helgeland (LA Confidential, Mystic River, Man on Fire, Salt), the film will undoubtedly have a strong storyline and will likely bring out the best of its cast.

Robinson is being portrayed by a relatively unknown actor named Chadwick Boseman. This is a good move by the producers and people behind the film, as it's hard to have a well-known actor portray an iconic person in film. You don't want the actor's previous works overshadow the current role. Harrison Ford will portray Branch Rickey, the man that signed Robinson. Chris Meloni (Law and Order: SVU) will portray Leo Durocher, manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers, the team that Robinson first played on.

What really sold me on this well-made trailer (kudos to you, Warner Bros.) was the music. Can't go wrong with a good Jay Z tune (Brooklyn We Go Hard)! Seriously, how can you not get goosebumps when you hear the rapper say "I Jack, I Rob, I Sin". What a clever play on the name! Such a poignant statement.

Not going to say much more as this one is clearly on the Spring 2013 movie list. I'll let the trailer speak for itself.

For more information on the upcoming film, check out the wikipedia page or the film's official page.

Hit and Run AKA Crap and Run

Hit and Run
Directors: David Palmer and Dax Shepard
Starring: Dax Shepard, Kristen Bell, and Bradley Cooper
Box Office: $13,746,550 (USA)
DVD Review

This movie made me sad. So sad. I think it was supposed to make me laugh but I don't think I laughed once. There might have been a small chuckle here and there, but nothing to write home about. I expected a lot more from this film and instead, was left questioning the careers of several actors involved in this movie.

Hit and Run is an action-comedy starring Dax Shepard as Charlie Bronson, a man under Witness Protection, living in a small town in California. His girlfriend, Annie (Kristen Bell) is a professor at the local college with a doctorate in Non-Violent Conflict Resolution, a major she created herself at Stanford University. Her supervisor Debbie (Kristin Chenoweth) recommends Annie for a job heading up a newly created Conflict Resolution program at the University of California, scheduling an interview to take place in a matter of days. Debbie adds that if she does not go to the interview, Annie will not have a job at the college.

Annie tells Charlie of her predicament, upsetting him as he used to live in Los Angeles prior to enrolling in the Witness Protection Program and cannot follow her there if she moves. Though Annie decides not to go, Charlie changes his mind and insists on taking her to L.A., making the decision to move with her. Before leaving, Annie realizes that she has left her teaching certificate with her ex-boyfriend, Gil (Michael Rosenbaum) and must retrieve it from his home. Gil is aware of Charlie being in Witness Protection and strongly advises Annie not to go with him. He decides to follow them and has his brother, a police officer, trace them as well. Also following the unknowing couple is inept US Marshall Randy (Tom Arnold) who can`t seem to do anything right.

Gil discovers Charlie's true identity and uses it to look into his past, discovering that he used to be a getaway driver who testified in bank robbery case against his former friends including Alexander Dmitri (Bradley Cooper), who is determined to get the money he is owed from the botched robbery from Charlie. And so the action begins.

First off, I'm glad I didn't see this film in theatres. It was released in August 2012, which as we here at Don't Sit Next To Us have stated before, is a month of unwinding from the summer blockbusters and can generally produce some decent, underrated films. I put this film on the back burner, and luckily, it stayed there.

The film was completely horrible. There were some elements that stood out: story was decent. Just fell flat. Didn't go up, didn't go down. Just stayed flat. Had promise, just couldn't follow through. I still haven't figured out where the climax of the plot was. And I don't think I will ever know. Actors were great. Just didn't have much to work with. There were a few funny moments. Just not enough. Action was great. Car chases with old American muscle cars is always fun to watch. The best part of the film was the score. Not sure if  Shepard himself chose the accompanying music for each scene, but if he did, kudos to him! I loved it! Unexpected and perfect. The best way to describe the choices.

I get were Shepard was going with this film. Just didn't get there fast enough. It was smart. But maybe too smart for its own good. Too much political undertones and not enough laugh out loud moments.

Final Verdict: Skip it. An action comedy that has enough action but not nearly enough comedy. A throw back action film that accomplished the stylistic points nicely but that's it. Another film to add to the "crap" pile.

Rotten Tomatoes

J.J. Abrams Confirmed for Star Wars Episode VII - And The Geek World Rejoices!

On January 25, 2013, a collective cheer was heard around the world. Star Wars geeks and non Star Wars geeks banded together to rejoice in the news that J.J. Abrams will be directing the latest installment in the Star Wars franchise.

According to Starwars.com, Abrams will be at the helm of the film while Academy Award-winning Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine) will be providing the screenplay. Kathleen Kennedy, longtime producing partner of Steven Spielberg and recent successor to George Lucas for Lucasfilm, will be lead producer of the film.

With all these influential people in the film industry working together on this project, I can't help but become excited for where the Star Wars franchise will take us next. I haven't been the biggest fan of the series but have enjoyed the stories. I'm curious to see if Abrams can adapt to the specific format that Star Wars has created and incorporated all these years. The series has a certain way of filming, story telling and displaying the epic story of Darth Vader, Luke Skywalker and the rest. Abrams also has a specific way of creating which strongly differs from what Lucas has done. His films and stories tend to be very out-there in terms of the sci-fi genre. I just hope he can reign it in for this film (and possibly more installments in the franchise).

The franchise rights were recently purchased by Disney (which seems to own a part of EVERYTHING these days) and the newest film is already set to be released in 2015. This will be the first installment to not be produced or distributed by 20th Century Fox. Most notably absent is Lucas from the helm of this film. Instead, Lucas will serve as "creative consultant" (which basically means he gets to sit on set, give a few opinions, and watch the cheques roll in). However, the iconic director in the geek world did provide a story treatment for this installment. I don't think a deal would have been made between Disney and Lucasfilm if Lucas was not given certain creative control of the franchise.

With news of the director being named, rumours have begun on which previous cast members would return. Although the majority of actors have expressed interested in returning to the series (Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Ewan McGregor, and Samuel L. Jackson), nothing has been confirmed.

Is it just me or is everyone else geeking out at this strange movie-world mash-up of two of the biggest geek-franchises in history? (Star Trek and Star Wars). I think it's safe to say that no matter what, this film is going to be successful. Let's hope it's actually good too!

Stay tuned to Don't Sit Next To Us for the latest updates on Star Wars Episode VII and any other "geek" type films and franchises!